Oral
Answers to
Questions

Women and Equalities

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Workplace Inequality: Gender and Race

Carol Monaghan: What steps the Government are taking to tackle (a) gender and (b) racial inequality in the workplace.

Stuart McDonald: What steps the Government are taking to tackle (a) gender and (b) racial inequality in the workplace.

Kemi Badenoch: As part of our strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, we have committed to strengthen the protections against sexual harassment in the workplace. That includes taking forward two legislative measures as part of the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). Furthermore, in our landmark inclusive Britain strategy we committed to publishing guidance on ethnicity pay reporting for employers. That will be published soon and will support employers to identify and tackle unfair pay gaps in their workforces.

Carol Monaghan: New data published by the Ministry of Defence earlier this month showed that in the year to September 2022, more women left the armed forces than joined. Given the string of sexual abuse and harassment allegations that we have heard, that data is concerning but hardly surprising. What is the Minister doing to ensure that women are safe in the armed forces and that the pervasive attitude of misogyny in the armed forces is tackled?

Kemi Badenoch: The hon. Lady is right to raise that serious issue. My colleagues in the Ministry of Defence take it very seriously and have a strategy and a plan to tackle it. As I mentioned in respect of sexual harassment in the workplace, we have many measures to look into what is going on. We are concerned about women leaving the workplace, and this Government will do everything we can to make sure that women are encouraged to stay and thrive in their workplaces.

Stuart McDonald: The Scottish Government are encouraging employers to report on ethnicity pay gaps—a policy supported by the Women and Equalities Committee—but the Scottish Government do not have the powers to enforce that policy. Is the Minister willing to have a conversation about the transfer of those powers, so that we can all learn lessons from the results?

Kemi Badenoch: We have no plans to devolve equal opportunities policy. Quite a lot of work is being done on ethnicity pay reporting. It should not be made mandatory. It is different from gender pay gap reporting, because it covers more than two separate categories. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail on the work that we are doing, but we will publish guidance for those companies that want to carry out ethnicity pay reporting in due course.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

Caroline Nokes: Gendered abuse, harassment and bullying in the workplace is wrong, but it can happen anywhere. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when there is gendered abuse, bullying and intimidation in this Chamber, we should make sure that action is taken to stamp it out?

Kemi Badenoch: I completely agree. This is a very serious issue. We are all aware of allegations that have been made against Members in this House. I know that you care very much about this issue, Mr Speaker. This is a place where we have freedom of speech and freedom of expression. We condemn any Member who tries to intimidate, harass or abuse other Members of Parliament when they are simply representing their constituents.

Rehman Chishti: On racial inequality and discrimination, a previous Home Office report looked at hate crime in terms of Islamophobia and antisemitism. The statistics and figures were absolutely appalling, with a high number of incidents. The Government removed the independent adviser on Islamophobia, Qari Asim. He apparently did not have any terms of reference for two years. Given the Government’s commitment to tackle Islamophobia and intolerance, what is their strategy?

Kemi Badenoch: The Government have a strategy to tackle anti-Muslim hatred. I recommend that my hon. Friend raises this issue with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, who is responsible for that portfolio as part of the communities strategy.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Kirsten Oswald: This week, the UK Government rejected outright five recommendations of the Women and Equalities Committee on menopause and the workplace, and they are not committing to any new work in response to the report. The Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), described the Government’s progress as “glacial” and their response as “complacent”. She pointed out the missed opportunity to protect vast numbers of talented and experienced women from leaving the workforce. Will the Minister change tack? Will she commit finally to acting on  menopause and the workplace? If she will not, will she commit to look again at why devolving employment law in Scotland matters so much, so that we can do that work?

Kemi Badenoch: I would ask the hon. Lady to read the women’s health strategy, in which she will see that the menopause is a priority area. The Select Committee has made recommendations, which we have considered carefully, but there is no point in the Government having a strategy if they are simply going to accept recommendations from elsewhere that do not conform to it. The best thing for her to do would be to work with the Government and look at the good work we are doing on tackling issues around the menopause.

Gynaecological Care: Waiting Lists

Emma Hardy: If she will hold discussions with her Cabinet colleagues on NHS waiting lists for gynaecological care.

Maria Caulfield: Tackling NHS waiting lists, including for gynaecology, is a priority for the Government, which is why we are spending £8 billion on clearing our backlog. For gynae procedures specifically, we have opened 90 surgical hubs, 90 community diagnostic centres and women’s health hubs, which will all help to tackle gynaecology backlogs.

Emma Hardy: Some vaginal mesh-injured women have been left waiting four years for mesh removal, and I have already highlighted women’s concerns that the surgeons they go to for mesh removal are trained only in implanting the mesh and not in removing it. These women fear that, once again, they are being used as test subjects. When will mesh-injured women get the redress that was recommended in Baroness Cumberlege’s review, “First Do No Harm”?

Maria Caulfield: I thank the hon. Lady for her work in this space. I recognise that while we have set up nine specialist mesh centres to tackle mesh removal and seen a number of women come forward and receive their surgery, there are still a number on the waiting list. I am meeting some of the campaigners on mesh removal next week. We were at the Health and Social Care Committee hearing just a few weeks ago, and I heard some of their concerns then. I recognise that there is still progress to be made in this space.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the shadow Minister, Anneliese Dodds.

Anneliese Dodds: NHS England figures show that in October 2012, 15 women had been waiting over a year for gynaecological treatment. Can the Minister tell the House how many women had been waiting for that long in October last year?

Maria Caulfield: As the shadow Minister will know, there is a backlog of procedures in all four devolved nations of the United Kingdom for clinical reasons, rather than political reasons. We have made huge progress in clearing the two-year backlog, with the majority of those patients now having had their treatments. We are  on track to meet the target for the 18-month backlog in April, and we will then focus on those who are waiting a year.

Anneliese Dodds: I regret that the Minister did not directly answer my question—perhaps it was because she is aware of the appalling scale of the backlog. As of October last year, 38,000 women had been waiting over a year for treatment. That is 2,500 times more than 10 years ago. On top of that, less than half of women are up to date with cervical screening in some areas. Do women suffering in pain now just have to accept long waiting times and low screening rates under the Conservatives?

Maria Caulfield: Isn’t it sad that this is turning into a political football, when there are clinical reasons why backlogs have accumulated over the two years? Perhaps the shadow Minister will look at Wales, where Labour has been in charge for 20 years and where the performance is worse than in England.

Maternity Outcomes: Migrant Women

Taiwo Owatemi: What steps the Government are taking to reduce disparities in maternity outcomes for migrant women.

Maria Caulfield: The MBRRACE report shows that women from black, Asian and mixed ethnic groups have worse maternity outcomes. That is why NHS England has published the equity and equality guidance for local maternity services, supported by £6.8 million of investment to focus on actions to reduce the disparities.

Taiwo Owatemi: Last year, the Government’s maternity taskforce pleaded with the Government to provide better maternity care for migrant women, but eight in 10 refugee and migrant women are still waiting more than 10 weeks to get their first antenatal care. That is compounded by the fact that black women in this country are still four times more likely to die from childbirth. Can the Minister let us know when the taskforce will finish its inquiry and when the Government will start delivering better maternity care for women in this country?

Maria Caulfield: I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting the work of the maternity disparities taskforce, which this Government set up. I have been working with its co-chair, Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, and our next meeting will focus on some of the actions to tackle this issue. From October last year, each local area has produced a local maternity equity and equality action plan, targeting specific communities within the area to try to improve outcomes. I encourage all Members to look at their local action plan, and if they have concerns that it will not meet those needs, they should please come and see me. I am very happy to work with Members on this.

Gender Pay Gap

Tan Dhesi: What steps she is taking to help close the gender pay gap.

Ellie Reeves: What steps she is taking to help close the gender pay gap.

Kemi Badenoch: It was a Conservative Government who introduced gender pay gap reporting in 2017, to motivate employers to look at their pay data and improve workplace gender equality. To accelerate progress, we are supporting legislation that enhances flexible working, extends redundancy protection for those on maternity leave, introduces carer’s leave and strengthens protections against harassment in the workplace.

Tan Dhesi: The gender pay gap for full-time employees was 8.3% in April 2022, which was sadly up from 7.7% the previous year. Worse still, Labour’s analysis has uncovered that the gender pay gap for black African women is an appalling 26% when compared with the average male worker, and the figures for Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are 28% and 31% respectively. Rather than watch as the situation deteriorates, what urgent steps are the Government taking to deal with these dreadful disparities?

Kemi Badenoch: I do not recognise any of the hon. Gentleman’s statistics. With all due respect, I have seen all sorts of Labour analysis that misuses and abuses statistics to the point where we honestly cannot take it seriously. If he does have real evidence, I am keen that he sends it for the equality hub to analyse. Those figures do not represent anything we have found across Government.

Ellie Reeves: Closing the gender pay gap would add £600 million to the UK’s economy by 2025. Labour has a plan to do this by requiring large firms to publish gender pay gap plans, permitting equal pay comparisons, extending statutory maternity and paternity leave, and strengthening protections for pregnant women. Will the Government finally accept our proposals?

Kemi Badenoch: I am afraid that the Government will not accept those proposals. The hon. Lady conflates equal pay and gender pay gap reporting, which are not the same thing. This is an area that has a lot of nuance, and Labour needs to do a little more homework.

Robin Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways to close the gender pay gap is to support women who are returning to work after pregnancy? Will she therefore use her good offices to encourage cross-Government work to improve the affordability and availability of childcare for new mothers?

Kemi Badenoch: Both sides of the House can agree that more support and more work is needed on this issue. Childcare is one of the reasons why women leave the workplace, and we are doing everything we can to support women to have appropriate childcare arrangements.

British Sign Language

Chloe Smith: What recent progress she has made in implementing the British Sign Language Act 2022.

Mims Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for her important work in delivering the Act. Work continues across Government to ensure that the Departments named in the schedule to the Act are   aware of their reporting duty. They will report on their use of BSL in public communications at the end of the first reporting period on 28 June.

Chloe Smith: I welcome that update. Will the advisory board be on track ahead of that first statutory reporting date? When will the statutory guidance be commenced? Furthermore, will my hon. Friend commit to the Government’s major public broadcasts being fully accessible?

Mims Davies: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the first meeting of the Departments driving the Act is due to take place in mid-February. It is vital that the 20 Departments listed in the schedule deliver the commitments. The advisory board will be the first dual-language board advising His Majesty’s Government, which demonstrates our commitment to the deaf community. It will form the vital guidance on the Act, and it will rightly look at BSL for major public broadcasts, which many of our constituents want to see and have asked for.

Margaret Ferrier: What discussions has the Minister had with her colleagues in the Government Communication Service about ensuring that BSL interpretation is provided for Government announcements and media events, and about the importance of not relying on written documents as an adjustment for deaf people?

Mims Davies: I thank the hon. Lady for her interest. The British Sign Language advisory board is being established to advise the Government on that implementation. Among the people giving advice will be BSL signers, and the majority of the members will be deaf BSL users who have lived experience and want Government communications to be accessible. I am proud that the Department for Work and Pensions has accessible jobcentres, and the same is needed for major Government announcements.

Child Poverty: Black, Asian and  Minority Ethnic Children

Catherine West: If she will make an assessment of the implications for her policies of trends in child poverty levels for black, Asian and minority ethnic children.

Mims Davies: The Government are committed to a sustainable long-term approach to tackling poverty and supporting families on lower incomes. To help people progress, the Department for Work and Pensions provides a range of support for anyone at any age, career stage or background to move forward and be better off. As well as one-to-one support with their work coach, jobseekers can access sector-based work academies, the restart programme and the Work and Health programme.

Catherine West: The Jesuits said, “Give me a child until he is seven and I will show you the man.” That means that the impact of what we do in helping children under the age of seven will create a more just future. What urgent action will the Government take to address  deep poverty affecting 46% of black, Asian and minority ethnic families? Is there extra funding that can be given to schools and put into our teaching to support children under the age of seven in black, Asian and minority ethnic communities?

Mims Davies: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As an MP who has won an award for focusing on disadvantaged groups, there is no doubt that she has interest in this area. At 70%, the ethnic minority employment rate is at a record high. We know that work is the best route out of poverty, and that mentoring, support and being able to see role models are absolutely key. I commit to continuing to work across Government with those disadvantaged groups to make sure that that focus is rightly on them.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Yasmin Qureshi: My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) asked about deep poverty among minority children. I shall repeat the point again: black, Asian and minority ethnic households are twice as likely to be in deep poverty, struggling to afford everyday basics such as food and energy. That is 46% of ethnic minority children living below the breadline. Is the Minister proud of her Government’s record, and will she answer the question that was put by my hon. Friend?

Mims Davies: I refer the hon. Lady to my previous answer. We do know that work is the best route out of poverty and the best way to tackle those deep-rooted disadvantages. I recently joined a No.10 roundtable on a mentoring and support pipeline to help understand what is holding people back. No one should be left behind because of their postcode or their background. Mentoring circles at the DWP can make a real difference, particularly to young people who are looking to progress from that deep disadvantage.

Gender Pension Gap

Patricia Gibson: What recent assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the gender pension gap.

Mims Davies: The primary causes of the gender pension gap are due to the historical inequality of the labour market. This includes differences in working patterns and earnings for men and women. The Government have taken key steps, such as the introduction of shared parental leave, mandatory gender pay gap reporting, and an effort, as we have heard already today, to tackle the root causes of this problem for women. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) is looking directly at this issue for women as well.

Patricia Gibson: It is bad enough that women born in the 1950s were robbed of their pensions, but, more generally, the gender pension gap is significantly larger than the gender pay gap and applies to a significantly large proportion of women in the UK, with retired women more likely to be poorer and more likely to rely  on pension credit. That is a problem that persists. Will the Minister urgently address the issue, particularly the injustice suffered by WASPI women, or will her Government just ignore women being poorer in retirement?

Mims Davies: I assure the hon. Lady that we will not be doing that. We monitor pension contributions and participation by gender, and publish data regularly through our workplace pension participation and savings trends publication. Key to this matter is our funding of returner programmes, which supports those who have taken time out of the labour market for caring responsibilities. Finally, pension sharing on divorce is an option that can help women if a marriage or civil partnership has broken down. As I have said, this is a focus for us all.

Topical Questions

Cat Smith: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Kemi Badenoch: The Government will publish a draft Bill setting out our approach to banning conversion practices, which will go for pre-legislative scrutiny in this parliamentary Session. We are committed to protecting everyone at risk of those practices from harm and we are clear that the legislation must not affect the ability of parents, teachers or counsellors to have open, exploratory and even challenging conversations with young people.

Cat Smith: Has the Minister had sight of the Health and Social Care Committee’s report into the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review and, particularly on paragraph 53, what conversations might she be having with Treasury colleagues to support women seeking redress?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank the Health and Social Care Committee for its IMMDS follow-up report. Our sympathies remain with all those women affected by sodium valproate. Patient safety is our top priority and we are committed to improving how the system listens to people, which is why I have asked the Patient Safety Commissioner, Dr Henrietta Hughes, to look into redress schemes. I am not committing to any specific next steps today, but the Minister for Women will provide an update in due course.

Bob Blackman: Does my hon. Friend— Cheers from the Opposition? That does not happen very often. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whether they live in Land’s End or John O’Groats, it is important for every citizen to know their rights and for those rights to be implemented on a clear and consistent basis so that no one is discriminated against?

Stuart Andrew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The United Kingdom has some of the strongest equality legislation in the world, and rightly so. We continue to ensure that all those rights are protected. Under the Equality Act 2010, any person who is subject to discrimination can personally take their case to court to seek a remedy.

Carolyn Harris: [R] Despite the 11th-hour response to my letter about the hormone replacement therapy repayment certificates, which arrived in my inbox just an hour ago, there still appears to be some ambiguity about what the certificate will cover. In her letter, the Minister says that changes to the drug tariff are being finalised to add “eligible items”, with no indication whether that will cover all HRT products. For the benefit of women across the country and as a matter of urgency, can the Minister please provide a comprehensive list of eligible products?

Maria Caulfield: I thank the hon. Lady for her work in this space. I responded to her letter last week as quickly as possible and I am glad she has received the response. I just want to confirm that from April the HRT prepayment certificate will be available to women—at £18.70 for a whole year—saving women hundreds of pounds on HRT prescriptions every year.

Laura Farris: I am pleased that the Government are reinstating protection against third-party harassment in the workplace, but employers are frequently confused when confronted with conflicting views on sex and gender. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Equality and Human Rights Commission will be publishing detailed guidance to explain how employers should treat protected beliefs on sex-based rights?

Kemi Badenoch: The Government will be supporting the Equality and Human Rights Commission in developing a statutory code on workplace harassment. We will be working closely on that. The Government are also preparing their own practical guidance for employers on preventing sexual harassment in the workplace, which should address the very issues my hon. Friend just raised.

Clive Efford: A Citizens Advice report published in the past two weeks shows that 600,000 households were moved to prepayment meters. There are bound to be many vulnerable and disabled people who have been moved on to prepayment meters in that time. Can the Minister say what she has been doing to ensure that that practice ceases and to protect those people in future?

Mims Davies: I believe that issue is going to be discussed further between the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Work and Pensions, which provides support. I am very proud to be bringing forward the next stage of the household support fund and the cost of living payments. I urge anybody who is concerned about making payments to contact their energy supplier, to use the benefits calculator on gov.uk and to look at the support for the cost of living from the household support fund through their local authority.

Nicola Richards: The Wagner Group is reported by the UN and others to be committing atrocities, including rape, against women and girls in Ukraine on behalf of its Russian paymasters.  Will the Secretary of State raise that with Cabinet colleagues and urge the Government to proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The UK condemns Russia’s use of Russian-state proxies such as the Wagner Group in Ukraine and globally. While the mercenaries operating in Ukraine in support of the Russian invasion are present in other conflict settings, including Mali and the Central African Republic, and are continuing to bring us huge challenges, we continue to work with the Ukrainian Government on tackling conflict-related sexual violence, including through UK expertise to support the investigations through the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group. We will not stop providing that support.

Rushanara Ali: The average cost of a full-time nursery place for a child under 2 when there is no Government support is about £14,000 a year, and it is much more in London. Can the Minister get her Government to put in the investment needed to fix the broken childcare system so that more mothers can return to work, particularly those who are single parents and struggle to return to work because of the lack of affordable childcare?

Kemi Badenoch: This is, as I mentioned earlier, an issue that the Government are working very hard on. I will raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, who can write to the hon. Lady and address those concerns more fully.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I point out that a British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Margaret Ferrier: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 January.

Rishi Sunak: Can I start by wishing everyone a happy Burns night, especially those celebrating in Scotland?
As we prepare to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary courage of Britain’s holocaust survivors, including 94-year-old Arek Hersh, who is here with us today. This Government will legislate to build a holocaust memorial and learning centre next to Parliament so that the testimonies of survivors such as Arek will be heard at the heart of our democracy by every generation to come.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Margaret Ferrier: Shockingly, one in six women in the UK has experienced economic abuse. This is not just about money, but about restricting access to other resources such as food, housing or work. It is a lesser  known aspect of coercive control that affects my constituents, the Prime Minister’s constituents and those of every Member across the House. What plans does the Prime Minister have to review in detail the way that Government Departments and policies can be exploited by abusers, and to ensure that those loopholes can be closed?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Lady raises an important point. Let me assure her that the Government are committed to tackling violence against women and girls. That is why we passed the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, introducing new offences such as coercion and coercive control, stalking and others. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure women and girls feel as safe as they deserve and rightly should be.

Marco Longhi: Although I was disappointed that Dudley did not make the final cut in the latest levelling-up funding round, I am of course pleased that we received the £25 million towns deal, the brand new Duncan Edwards leisure facility, and a transport interchange project that has been secured since my election in 2019. But our high street is on its knees, so will the Prime Minister meet me and Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council to discuss our levelling-up bid and how we can ensure success in the next round?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is a great advocate for his constituents. I am delighted that, thanks to his efforts, Dudley has received £25 million from the towns fund. I know that there will be disappointment about the levelling-up fund, but all bids, including that made by Dudley Council, can receive feedback to be strengthened for future funding rounds. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss it further.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: This week, we will remember the 6 million Jews murdered in the holocaust and all those scarred by genocide since as we mark Holocaust Memorial Day. We must all commit, across this House, to defeat prejudice and hatred wherever we may find it. To work for a better future, we must find light in the darkness.
May I also join the Prime Minister in wishing everyone a happy Burns night?
Zara Aleena was walking home from a night out with her friends when she was savagely attacked, assaulted and beaten to death. Zara was a brilliant young woman; a trainee lawyer with a bright future. Her killer is a violent, racist, woman-hating thug, not fit to walk the same streets. But that is precisely the problem: he was free to walk the same streets. The inspectorate report into her case says that opportunities were missed by the probation service that could have prevented this attack and saved her life. Does the Prime Minister accept those findings?

Rishi Sunak: This was a truly terrible crime. As the chief inspector has found, the failings in this case and others were serious and unacceptable. In both of the cases that are in the public domain, these failures  can be traced to failings in the initial risk assessment, and that is why immediate steps are being taken to address the serious issues raised.

Keir Starmer: I am glad the Prime Minister accepts those findings. The report also says that staffing vacancies and excessive workloads contributed to those fatal failures. It makes it absolutely clear this was not a one-off. As the report says, these are “systemic issues” in the probation service. They are clearly ministerial responsibilities. Does the Prime Minister accept those findings as well?

Rishi Sunak: Let me outline for the right hon. and learned Gentleman exactly what steps we are taking, and that is to ensure that mandatory training to improve risk assessments is being put in place. We are mandating checks with the police and children’s services before  a probation officer can recommend to the court that a convicted offender be given an electronically monitored sentence, and we are implementing new processes to guarantee the swift recall of offenders. The action we are taking is already making a difference, as we see, for example, in the reduction of the number of electronically monitored curfews being given by the courts.

Keir Starmer: It was Barking, Dagenham and Havering that tragically and fatally let Zara down, but across the country, probation services are failing after a botched then reversed privatisation and after a decade of under-investment. It is yet another vital public service on its knees after 13 years of Tory Government. I spoke to Zara’s family this morning. It is hard to convey to this House the agony that they have been through. They say that the Government have blood on their hands over these failings. The Prime Minister has accepted the findings of the report. Does he also accept what Zara’s family say?

Rishi Sunak: My heart of course goes out to Zara’s family. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned accountability. The probation service has taken action where failings have been found and where that has been appropriate. With regard to the overall service, there is now £155 million a year of extra investment that we are putting in to the probation service so that we can deliver better supervision of offenders. There has also been an increase in the number of senior probation officers, but one of the other things we must remember, if we do want to increase the safety of women and girls on our streets, is that we need tough sentencing, and that is why this Government passed the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which he and his party opposed.

Keir Starmer: In the light of the case of Zara, I really do not think the Prime Minister should be boasting about the protection he is putting in place for women. I am not going to take lectures from him about that.
Does the Prime Minister agree that any politician who seeks to avoid the taxes they owe in this country is not fit to be in charge of taxpayer money?

Rishi Sunak: I am pleased to make my position on this matter completely clear to the House. The issues in question occurred before I was Prime Minister. With regard to the appointment of the Minister without Portfolio, the usual appointments process was followed.  No issues were raised with me when he was appointed to his current role. Since I commented on this matter last week, more information has come forward, which is why I have asked the independent adviser to look into the matter. I obviously cannot prejudge the outcome of that, but it is right that we fully investigate this matter and establish all the facts.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister avoided the question. Anybody watching would think it is fairly obvious that someone who seeks to avoid tax cannot also be in charge of tax, yet for some reason, the Prime Minister cannot bring himself to say that or even acknowledge the question. Last week, the Prime Minister told the House that the chair of the Tory party had addressed his tax affairs “in full” and there was “nothing” to add. This week, after days of public pressure, he now says there are serious questions to answer. What changed?

Rishi Sunak: I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads from prepared sheets, but he should listen to what I actually say. Since I commented on this matter last week, more information, including a statement by the Minister without Portfolio, has entered the public domain, which is why it is right that we do establish the facts. Let me take a step back. Of course, the politically expedient thing to do would have been for me to say that this matter must be resolved by Wednesday at noon, but I believe in proper due process. That is why I appointed an independent adviser and that is why the independent adviser is doing his job. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. The Leader of the Opposition and his party chair, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), both urged me and the Government to appoint an independent adviser, and now he objects to that independent adviser doing their job. It is simple political opportunism and everyone can see through it.

Keir Starmer: We all know why the Prime Minister was reluctant to ask his party chair questions about family finances and tax avoidance, but his failure to sack him, when the whole country can see what is going on, shows how hopelessly weak he is—a Prime Minister overseeing chaos, overwhelmed at every turn. He cannot say when ambulances will get to heart attack victims again. He cannot say when the prison system will keep streets safe again. He cannot even deal with tax avoiders in his own Cabinet. Is he starting to wonder if this job is just too big for him?

Rishi Sunak: The difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and me is that I stand by my values and my principles, even when it is difficult. When I disagreed fundamentally with the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), I resigned from the Government, but for four long years, he sat next to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) when antisemitism ran rife and his predecessor sided with our opponents. That is what is weak: he has no principles, just petty politics.

Edward Timpson: For our most vulnerable children, school is often their principal place of safety as well as education, but as reported in my review of school exclusions for the Government in 2019, the unacceptable and illegal use of off-rolling is still shutting a worrying number of children out of the  classroom, out of learning and out of the protection they need from gangs, violence and domestic abuse. The Department for Education has done some impressive and excellent work to address this terrible practice, but what more can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that we permanently exclude off-rolling from our schools?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. and learned Friend raises an important issue. The Government are clear that off-rolling is unlawful and unacceptable in any form, and the Department for Education continues to work with Ofsted to tackle it. Where Ofsted finds it, it will always be addressed in the inspection report and it could also lead to a school’s leadership being judged inadequate.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to the SNP leader.

Stephen Flynn: Let me start by echoing the sentiments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in relation to Holocaust Memorial Day—truly horrific crimes that we must never forget and endeavour to ensure are never repeated.
May I send my heartfelt thoughts, and indeed I hope those of all across the Chamber, to the firefighter who is in a serious condition following the blaze in Edinburgh just a few days ago?
May I ask the Prime what advice he would have for individuals seeking to protect their personal finances? Should they seek out a future chair of the BBC to help secure an £800,000 loan, should they set up a trust in Gibraltar and hope that HMRC simply does not notice, or should they do as others have done and simply apply for non-dom status?

Rishi Sunak: Let me share in the hon. Gentleman’s expressions of sympathy to the families concerned and to the firefighter who is currently in hospital. I am sorry to hear that, and I wish him a speedy recovery.
I am proud of this Government’s record of supporting the most vulnerable in our society: this winter, helping all families—£900—with their energy bills; raising the national living wage to record levels; and ensuring that our pensioners get the support they need. That is what this Government are doing to ensure financial security in this country.

Stephen Flynn: I am not sure what question the Prime Minister thought I asked, but that certainly was not it. Let us be clear about this: this is now a matter of the Prime Minister’s own integrity and accountability. After all, when there were questions about the Home Secretary and concerns about her role in relation to national security, he chose to back her. Now, he is choosing to back the chair of the Tory party, despite a £5 million penalty from HMRC, and of course he is seeking to protect the former Prime Minister despite his cosy financial relationship with the chair of the BBC. Is it little wonder that people in Scotland may well consider the Tory party to be a parcel of rogues?

Rishi Sunak: What I am standing up for is proper due process. That is why we have an independent adviser. It is right that the independent adviser conducts his investigation. That is how we will ensure accountability, and that is what I will deliver.

Rob Roberts: Despite having less than 5% of England’s population, Wales has almost 40 times more people waiting more than two years for NHS treatment—a sad case of “devolve and forget”, unfortunately, which does a disservice to my constituents in Delyn. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the UK Government remain concerned about the healthcare of the people in Wales, and with north Wales health board having been in “special measures” for eight years, can he come up with a way of putting the Welsh Labour Government in it too?

Rishi Sunak: As the hon. Gentleman highlights, the NHS right across our Union is facing pressure because of some of the challenges of flu and covid in particular causing high bed occupancy this winter. We are focused on delivering on the people’s priorities and bringing down the backlog. We have currently already eliminated waits of over two years and, as the hon. Gentleman says, there is more to go. That is why our investment this week into mental health treatment will ensure that we can ease the pressure further in A&E, and I continue to deliver that across the country.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I echo the comments of the Prime Minister in relation to Holocaust Memorial Day, and as we think of the situation in Ukraine, we also extend our best wishes to President Zelensky on his birthday.
Freedom of religion or belief is important in this country. Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was praying silently outside an abortion clinic in Birmingham when she was arrested and questioned by the police, not about her written or spoken words, but about her thoughts. We value freedom of religion or belief in this country. Will the Prime Minister commit himself to examining the laws of the United Kingdom to ensure that this country remains a beacon for freedom of religion or belief across the world?

Rishi Sunak: Of course we believe in freedom of religious expression and belief in this country, but we are also balancing that with the rights of women to seek legal and safe abortions. That is currently being discussed in this Parliament. These are always matters of a free vote, and I know that Members will treat them with the sensitivity they deserve.

Liam Fox: Innocent civilians are being murdered in Ukraine on Putin’s orders as we speak, and as we sit in a warmed House of Commons, families are freezing because their electricity has been cut off by Russian forces. Putin believes that Ukraine is more important to him than to the free world, and is moving to a full war footing. Ukrainians must make gains on the battlefield, and the next six months are crucial. They need a full range of weapons—air defence, artillery, longer-range missiles, and tanks—and enough to make a real difference. The UK has shown great leadership on this issue, so may I ask my right hon. Friend to use every means at his disposal, domestic and international, to honour the courage of the people of Ukraine, and to defend the whole world order, because ultimately that is what we are talking about?

Rishi Sunak: I have made it clear that the UK and our allies must accelerate our efforts to ensure that Ukraine wins this war and secures a lasting peace. Last year the United Kingdom provided £2.3 billion in military aid to Ukraine, the largest package of support of any European nation, and we will at least match that again this year. As my right hon. Friend knows, last week I announced that we would gift many battle tanks as part of the next major package of UK support to Ukraine, and I am pleased that our friends and allies are preparing to follow our lead.

Rupa Huq: Mr Speaker, London has it all: prime property, shopping, schools, and even the perfect time zone for money laundering. While there has been movement with Russian oligarchs, it is not just them, and we know that there are relatives of regimes that Members across the House condemn that are running bogus Islamic centres as fronts to stash their dirty cash, among other things. When will the National Crime Agency be adequately financed, so that we can be a world leader in anti-corruption, as we promised in 2016? Or is there a lack of political will to upset the apple cart?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Lady should know that we are currently in the process of legislating the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which puts in place many more measures to allow us to tackle some of the issues she raises. It also introduces the economic crime levy, which will provide considerably more funding to tackle economic crime in the UK.

Jason McCartney: The trans-Pennine rail upgrade is under way, which is good news, with stations in Slaithwaite and Marsden getting improvements. Not such good news are the dozens of daily rail service cancellations by TransPennine Express, which are causing absolute misery for my constituents who are trying to get to work, to college, or to visit family and friends. The franchise is up in May. Does the Prime Minister agree that enough is enough, and that if TransPennine Express does not get to grips with this we need to strip it of the franchise and get in somebody who will deliver reliable rail services for my constituents?

Rishi Sunak: We have been clear that the current service is simply not acceptable. Rail North Partnership is working with the company on a service improvement plan, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, (Huw Merriman) is having weekly meetings with them. As my hon. Friend points out, the TransPennine Express contract expires in May, and while there are currently discussions about that new contract, if Ministers conclude that the operator cannot be turned around, other decisions may be made.

Olivia Blake: Refugees and campaigners are gathered today outside Parliament to highlight the impact of the hostile environment—from Rwanda, to deaths in the channel and the latest scandal of missing children—on people in the migration and asylum system. Rather than cruel gimmicks such as Rwanda, is not the best way of deterring child crossings, saving lives and breaking the business model of criminal gangs the introduction of safe and legal routes to claim asylum?

Rishi Sunak: This is about fairness. It is about fairness for those who seek to come here legally, and it is about fairness for those who are here and our ability to integrate and support those we want to. What we will do is break the cycle of criminal gangs who are causing untold misery and leading to deaths in the channel. That is why we will introduce legislation that makes it clear that if you come here illegally, we will be able to detain you and swiftly remove you to a safe third country. That is a reasonable and common-sense approach that the vast majority of the British public support.

Oliver Heald: The Prime Minister will be aware of my concern that mental health patients should not be forced into accident and emergency departments when what they really need is specialist care. Will he say more about the extra money that is being made available for urgent mental health care facilities and what impact he thinks that will have on the treatment of mental health patients and the general situation in A&E departments?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. People in mental health crisis deserve compassionate care in a safe and appropriate setting. Too often, they end up in A&E when they should be receiving specialist treatment elsewhere. This week’s announcement on mental health ambulances, crisis cafés, crisis houses and mental health urgent treatment centres will ensure that patients get the vital help that they need while easing pressures on emergency departments and freeing up staff time. He is absolutely right to highlight the issue. Our announcement will make a major difference.

Tulip Siddiq: This week, as a trustee of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, I was honoured to hear from Lia Lesser, a holocaust survivor who came to this country by herself at the age of eight because her parents believed tat the UK was a safe haven for vulnerable children. I also read the Government’s own statistics that say 200 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children were missing from hotels in the UK. Ministers have admitted that they have no idea about the whereabouts of those children. Does the Prime Minister think that the UK is still a safe haven for vulnerable children?

Rishi Sunak: Over the last few years, the United Kingdom has opened up its hearts and homes to hundreds of thousands of people from Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong and provided refuge and sanctuary to many children in that process, but the reports that we have read about are concerning. Local authorities have a statutory duty to protect all children regardless of where they go missing from, and in that situation they work closely with local agencies, including the police, to establish their whereabouts. That is why it is so important that we end the use of hotels for unaccompanied asylum seekers and reduce pressure on the overall system. That is what our plans will do.

James Duddridge: Constituents in Southend and Rochford very much welcome the energy bills support scheme, which has helped 99% of households around the United Kingdom with rising fuel prices despite Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine. Will the Prime Minister assure my constituents  and the House that he is committed to continuing to help with the cost of living not only this winter but next winter?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right about the Government’s commitment to support all families with the cost of living: this winter, about £900 of support. Next year, as the energy price guarantee evolves, it will still be there with about £500 of support for families. That comes on top of record increases in the national living wage, worth about £1,600, and supporting our pensioners and the most vulnerable by inflating their benefits and pensions with inflation.

Clive Efford: In 2021, the Government enabled Yevgeny Prigozhin, the former chef to Putin and founder of the Wagner Group, to dodge UK sanctions to pursue a case in London against British journalist Eliot Higgins, who had exposed his link to the Wagner Group. Prigozhin believed that silencing Higgins would get his sanctions lifted. The overriding of UK sanctions was approved by the Treasury when the Prime Minister was Chancellor. Prigozhin’s English lawyers wrote that serving notice on Higgins “will require Treasury approval”. What values did the Prime Minister apply when he allowed a Putin warlord to use our courts to try to silence a British journalist and undermine UK sanctions?

Rishi Sunak: I am proud of our record in leading when it comes to sanctioning those people connected with the Putin regime. I think, at last count, we have sanctioned over 1,000 people and frozen tens of billions of pounds of assets. I am aware of the case the hon. Gentleman has raised, and we are looking at it. There is, as he knows, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, which deals with the licensing situations in these matters, but I am happy to get back to him on the specific case that he raised.

Nicola Richards: May I echo my right hon. Friend’s comments on the importance of Holocaust Memorial Day and welcome his renewed commitment today regarding the holocaust memorial and learning centre? Will he join me in encouraging Members from across the House to sign the Holocaust Educational Trust’s book of commitment, which will be in Parliament today and tomorrow, and pledge to remember the holocaust, fight antisemitism and support the important work of the Holocaust Educational Trust?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, we will legislate to help build the holocaust memorial and learning centre next to Parliament to serve as a powerful reminder of the holocaust, its victims and where prejudice can lead if unchallenged. I also join her in thanking the Holocaust Educational Trust for its fantastic work and in encouraging all Members to sign the book of commitment, as I will be doing later today.

Andrew Slaughter: A week ago my constituent Alireza Akbari was executed by order of the regime in Iran. In the three years preceding and the days following his murder, the UK Government made little effort to protect the life or protest the death of a British national. Tomorrow Mr Akbari’s family and I meet the Foreign Office  Minister, Lord Ahmad. They want to hear what help the Government can offer them at the time of their greatest suffering. Today this House wants to hear from the Prime Minister what sanction he will impose on the regime beyond the trifling steps taken so far. First and foremost, will he show some courage, follow the lead of the United States and the European Parliament and proscribe the entire revolutionary guard corps as a terrorist organisation?

Rishi Sunak: The regime is prolonging the suffering of the family, and it is sadly typical of its disregard for basic human dignity. I spoke about my views on Iran when I was before the Liaison Committee, and Iran must now provide answers about the circumstances of Alireza Akbari’s death and burial. We have actually pressed the Iranian regime formally through their chargé d’affaires in London and the Foreign Ministry in Tehran, and we will continue to do so until the family get the answers they deserve. We have also sanctioned several people connected with the case.

Sara Britcliffe: I thank the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for visiting Hyndburn and Haslingden last week to hear about the transformative difference that the levelling-up funding will make. This is a historic investment, with over £40 million secured. Does he agree that we are delivering on exactly what was promised in 2019 to the areas that were most forgotten, such as Hyndburn and Haslingden? Will he visit once works are completed to see the difference himself?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for her local community, and the results showed when the Chancellor and I were lucky enough to visit her last week. As she and many of the people we spoke to pointed out, this was an area that had been forgotten and neglected for decades, but it is this Government who are putting in the investment, spreading opportunity, making jobs and making sure that people can feel enormously proud of the place they call home.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Prime Minister realise that most people in my constituency think it is his role to keep our country safe? Is he aware that in all the years I have been in Parliament, I have never heard of a situation where our Army and armed forces are so run down that the Chairman of the Defence Committee and the Secretary of State for Defence both say that our armed forces have been hollowed out and are unfit to put a division into active service? What is he going to do about that?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget the fact that we have invested an extra £24 billion in our armed services. That is a record uplift in defence spending and ensures that we are one of the leading spenders on defence in NATO. We will continue to ensure we have one of the best-equipped fighting forces anywhere in the world. As we can see from the recent announcement on tanks, we continue to lead the world when it comes to standing up for not just our safety, but the safety of our allies around the world.

Mike Penning: As a former firefighter, I am sure the whole House will pray for the firefighter in Scotland who is today fighting for his life. Our emergency services go one way, into the danger, while we go the other way. Our thoughts and prayers should be with them.
Dacorum Borough Council, the Conservative-led council in my constituency, has done a fantastic job of building new houses, including social housing and council houses. Can the Prime Minister assure me that we will not be pushed into the green belt any more than we already have been and that we can protect the Chilterns in my constituency?

Rishi Sunak: I join my right hon. Friend in praising his local council for ensuring we build homes in the right places so that our young people can fulfil the dream of home ownership. He is also right to say that this Government will always protect our precious green spaces. The recent changes in our planning reforms will ensure that we can protect the green belt everywhere. His local community and others will benefit from those protections as we keep our local areas beautiful.

Martyn Day: UK in a Changing Europe reports that, at the end of 2022, 60% of voters said their cost of living had increased and 38% said that their personal finances had been negatively affected by our not being a member of the European Union. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts a 4% reduction in GDP, only two fifths of which has already happened, so surely the Prime Minister will agree with me, the electorate and the experts that Brexit has served only to exacerbate the cost of living and economic challenges facing these islands?

Rishi Sunak: Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine and the impact it has had on energy supplies has nothing to do with Brexit. What we are doing is ensuring that we can support families with those cost of living pressures. That is why we provided £900 of support this winter for energy bills, and that is why we are increasing the national living wage to record levels. We will continue to stand behind Britain’s families until we can bring inflation back down to where it belongs.

Virginia Crosbie: I know the Prime Minister will share my concern at the news this morning that 730 people may lose their jobs at the 2 Sisters chicken factory in Llangefni, one of the largest employers on Ynys Môn. What support can the Government offer both to my constituents who are affected by this devastating news and to the wider the community at this difficult time?

Rishi Sunak: I am very sorry to hear about the job losses my hon. Friend raises. My thoughts are with those affected and their families. I know how distressing that will be for them. I am pleased to say that the Department for Work and Pensions has procedures in place to support communities when situations like this arise. We will work very closely with her to do what we are doing everywhere across the country, which is providing good well-paid jobs for everyone, because that is the best way to build a happy and secure life.

Carolyn Harris: Exercise is essential for both physical and mental wellbeing, but with spiralling energy costs many venues, such as the Freedom Leisure centres in my constituency, are struggling to cope. While some sectors will receive extra support, the sport and leisure industry will not. If the Prime Minister agrees with me that the sector is vital to the long-term health of our communities, why are his Government not providing it with the financial support it needs to thrive?

Rishi Sunak: Of course I agree with the hon. Lady that exercise and leisure centres are important. That is why we provided significant support to them during covid and beyond. With regard to energy prices now, the Chancellor set out the new relief scheme that will run after the current one expires. It provides considerable support to all sorts of organisations up and down the country. I am sure it will benefit many businesses and organisations in her constituency.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I understand that the case referred to by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) is currently before the courts. It is therefore covered by the House’s sub judice resolution and should not be referred to in this House. It is, of course, open to any Member to ask that I waive the resolution in a particular case, but that has not happened in this case and therefore it should not be discussed at all. I will leave it at that.

Olivia Blake: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: Does it relate to Prime Minister’s questions?

Olivia Blake: Yes, Mr Speaker. My apologies: I forgot to refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on the support that I receive from RAMP—the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project—and my co-chairship of the all-party parliamentary group on migration.

Lindsay Hoyle: Thank you.

Wagner Group: Sanctions Regime

David Lammy: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on reports that the UK Government assisted Wagner Group head Yevgeny Prigozhin in circumventing the UK sanctions regime.

James Cartlidge: The war in Ukraine, as we all agree, is a barbaric, illegal incursion into a sovereign nation by another. It has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, mass displacement and an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe.
We will always stand up for our friends and allies, and we are proud to have led the world’s response, in partnership with our allies, in supporting Ukraine in its fight against Putin’s aggression. We will deliver tanks to roll back any Russian advance, we continue providing aid to help Ukrainians as they defend their homeland, and we have unveiled the most stringent sanctions on any country at any time in our history. We want to use economic sanctions to starve Putin’s war machine and put direct pressure on every individual involved in the decision to go to war and continue to make war on Ukraine.
In response to the question that has been asked today, I should say that it is a long-standing custom that the Government do not comment publicly on individual cases. It would not be appropriate to break that custom, even in a case as serious as this one, in which there is obviously public interest. However, I want to outline the general approach taken to date by the Treasury’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in cases in which persons designated under sanctions seek licences for legal fees, and how that has been followed, and the strong constitutional reasons for that.
Within the sanctions regime broadly, because everyone has a right to legal representation, it is possible for frozen assets to be used to pay for that legal representation. OFSI grants licences to allow sanctioned people to cover their own legal fees, provided that the costs are reasonable. To be absolutely clear, decisions on the issuance of licences for legal fees are largely taken by OFSI officials in line with standard practice. The principles and guidance for assessing these applications are long-standing and have been published for a number of years. Applications are assessed solely on a costs basis.
As the UK is a country with checks and balances, it is right that the relevant court, rather than the Government, should decide the outcome of a case on the substantive merits. However, I can confirm that in the light of recent cases, and related to this question, the Treasury is now considering whether this approach is the right one and whether changes can be made without the Treasury assuming unacceptable legal risk, while ensuring that we adhere to the rule of law. In advance of that, I know that the entire House shares the same goal: to support Ukraine and see all those behind the invasion punished for their complicity. The Government will continue to take a hard line on all those responsible.

David Lammy: I think the whole House will be shocked at the evasiveness that we have just seen from the Minister, given the seriousness of this case.
For years, the Labour party has been calling for the Government to clean up the London laundromat effectively and stop London homes being used as bitcoins for kleptocrats. For months, the Opposition have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Foreign Office in co-ordinating sanctions against Putin and his inner circle. But yesterday we found out that the Treasury, which was then under the leadership of the current Prime Minister, issued special licences that allowed Yevgeny Prigozhin to circumvent sanctions issued before Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
The Government appear to have granted a waiver for a warlord that enabled him to launch a legal attack on a British journalist. This is a perfect example of a SLAPP—a strategic lawsuit against public participation, designed to silence critics through financial intimidation.
Prigozhin is one of the most dangerous and notorious members of Putin’s inner circle. The Wagner Group, which he leads, is responsible for appalling atrocities in Ukraine and around the world. If the now Prime Minister’s Treasury had any hand in alleviating pressure on Prigozhin, I am sure every hon. Member would agree that that would be absolutely unconscionable. I ask the Minister to answer these questions for the benefit of the whole House. Did a Minister authorise the granting of a licence or exemption to Prigozhin? When did Ministers become aware of this incident and what actions have they taken? Will the Minister commit today to an independent investigation of this controversy? Will he commit to urgently review the law regarding SLAPP suits so that oligarchs and warmongers cannot bully and harass journalists and critics? When will the Government introduce restrictions on the provision of legal services to Russia, as the European Union already has?

James Cartlidge: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman: he takes us back to when I stood opposite him in our Ministry of Justice days.
I am not being evasive: I am standing in front of the House of Commons to answer the question. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Prime Minister, and he is right that my right hon. Friend was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. I shall explain the process. I am not going to comment on the individual case, but without prejudice to it and talking about the general situation that pertains to how OFSI considers such cases, there is a delegated framework whereby decisions on legal fees for persons designated under all the sanctions regimes are routinely taken by senior civil servants. I want to be clear on that. We are not aware of any case of legal fee decisions under any of the sanctions regimes being taken by a Minister. I want to be clear with the House on that.
The point about SLAPPs is really important. I was at the Ministry of Justice when it was a live issue. It was first raised in a Backbench Business Committee debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), in conjunction with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), and I responded to that debate for the Ministry of Justice. Let me set out what we are doing. We have been clear as a Government that SLAPPs represent a clear abuse of the legal system, as they rely on threatening tactics to silence free speech advocates who act in the public interest. That is why it is often called lawfare. We  ran a call for evidence on strategic lawsuits against public participation and libel reform from March to May 2022 in light of reports that Russia and its allies might be funding litigation against free speech in the UK. We published our response to the call for evidence on 20 July 2022, having closely analysed 120 responses from media, legal and civil society professionals, and we are committed to tackling SLAPPs.
I can confirm that targeted anti-SLAPP reforms will include a statutory definition of SLAPPs, an early dismissal process and costs protection for SLAPPs cases. The Government have committed to primary legislation to make those reforms a reality as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Alicia Kearns: I understand that the decision was made by civil servants. Will my hon. Friend commit to considering whether we need to introduce ministerial oversight and how quickly that should be done? It is gravely concerning that no civil servant thought that this might need political oversight or some sort of political intervention. Will my hon. Friend also consider the proscription of the Wagner Group, which is a state terrorist organisation responsible for war crimes around the world?
Finally, I have been disappointed by the Government’s response to my multiple written questions about the Wagner Group and the new centre it has set up in Serbia—it is an enormous installation. We are seeing heinous activities in the Balkans, especially around the illegal Republika Srpska day that took place. So my asks are introducing ministerial oversight; looking at the Wagner group in Serbia and putting pressure on the Serbian Government; and finally proscribing that organisation.

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee speaks with great expertise on these matters. She makes some points that are for other Departments to consider, but I will ensure that they are fed back. On the point about the specific process in relation to OFSI, I will not comment on the individual case, but there is a general point about seeking clarification. I can confirm that we will undertake an internal review to see how such cases are considered in the future, and we will say more on that in due course.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesman.

Drew Hendry: Despite the Minister’s gymnastics on this issue, it is clear that there are still serious and systemic links between the UK Government and Russian political elites. In 2021 the operations, tactics and human rights abuses of the Wagner Group were well known, and the EU and the UK imposed sanctions on Yevgeny Prigozhin, as the Wagner Group leader, for that reason. These revelations present a serious and immoral disregard for human rights obligations and due process at the heart of the Minister’s Government, and all this took place on the current Prime Minister’s watch, as he was Chancellor at the time.
Will the Minister tell us what advice, legal or otherwise, prompted the Treasury to make Prigozhin’s activities possible? It is not beyond his capability—legal or otherwise—to tell us who made the decision to override  that. What actions will his Government now take to ensure, as a result of these revelations, that the Prime Minister’s promised
“integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level”
will be followed through?

James Cartlidge: I think that the hon. Gentleman submitted a similarly worded urgent question this morning, and obviously I respect that point, but there are no gymnastics here; I am merely setting out the position.
The hon. Gentleman asked about legal advice and so on. Within the sanctions regime broadly, because we are a country with the rule of law and everyone has a right to legal representation, it is possible for frozen assets to be used to pay for that legal representation. This is about sanctioned individuals. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation grants licences to allow sanctioned people to cover their own legal fees provided that the costs are reasonable. I should make it clear that decisions on the issuance of licences for legal fees are not, and should not be, political, and are largely taken by officials in line with standard practice. As I said a few moments ago, we are not aware of a case relating to legal fees under any of the sanctions regimes in which a Minister took the decision.

David Davis: I welcome the Minister’s assertion that there is to be a review of this approach, but I ask him to make it quick. Even the Treasury’s press release today indicates a level of misunderstanding on the part of the officials, claiming a fundamental or absolute right to legal representation. Of course you have a right to representation if you are defending yourself in court, but there is no fundamental right to use legal representation to destroy someone else and shut down free speech.

James Cartlidge: As my right hon. Friend knows, I responded to his Backbench Business debate. He has been incredibly consistent in calling for actions on these points, and I respect that very much. However, I do think that the right to legal representation is a fundamental tenet of our democracy, which can mean—I am not commenting on the specific case—that individuals whom we find distasteful have a right to legal representation. Let us not forget that even at the Nuremberg trials, people who had committed the most heinous crimes in the history of the western world were legally represented.

Margaret Hodge: I have to say that I had never seen such a case of lack of professionalism, lack of integrity and lack of accountability as this one. It absolutely astounded me: I thought it was unbelievable.
Let me say to the Minister that in terms of the way in which such matters are decided, this is not an isolated case. Petr Aven, for instance, has been given a licence, and according to the press it is thought that he will be able to spend up to £600,000 a year on so-called household expenses which include buying and selling Bentley cars and other luxuries. That is just outrageous. By the time the sanctions stop, the resources—the sanctioned assets—will have disappeared.
Let me also say to the Minister that this issue of individual confidentiality does not play here. The Foreign Office publishes a list of the names of the individuals concerned. I therefore think that we have the right to  know what went wrong in this particular case, and that the Minister should report to Parliament. I welcome the fact that a review of the OFSI regime is taking place, but that too should be reported to Parliament.
Finally, may I ask the Minister for a commitment that the legal fees general licence will not be rolled over beyond its expiration date of 27 April 2023?

James Cartlidge: I have previously answered an urgent question, tabled by the right hon. Lady, on a matter relating to dividends in Russia, and—again—I respect her consistency in respect of a range of points that relate to this issue in one way or another. However, as she knows, I cannot go into the details of the specific case that she has mentioned. There are all kinds of reasons for that, and I think it important that we preserve it. I may be wrong, but I suspect that it would continue under any future Government, because there is very good reason for it. That is why we talk about the sanctions regime in aggregate rather than discussing individual confidential cases.
If we take the overview, we see that this country is doing everything possible. Our position on Ukraine is that we are not directly deploying our armed forces into the theatre, so we have to use every other lever at our disposal, including sanctioning more than 1,200 individuals and 120 entities and freezing assets worth £18 billion. It is a very ambitious sanctions regime, and we should be proud of what we are doing as a country to support Ukraine. We have played a key role in helping it to withstand the Russian invasion, although of course we recognise there is more to do.

Bob Seely: I am not going to talk about any individual case. I know that the Government are doing very good work on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill and the Bill of Rights, and—certainly on this side of the House—we all support that and recognise its importance.
I want to talk specifically about the SLAPPs primary legislation and where it will be. If it is to be in the Bill of Rights—as has now been indicated to me—rather than being a separate law, that may limit the scope of what we can do about SLAPPs. It may not cover all the stuff that is needed to cover the SLAPPs and the lawyers who engage in this practice, the SLAPPers. We need separate primary legislation, a SLAPPs Bill like the ten-minute rule Bill that I introduced yesterday. A gold-standard, best-practice SLAPPs Bill has been written for me, which the Government can take on or allow me to introduce. It covers a little bit of privilege, it covers the private investigator market, and it is broad enough to cover all the abusive SLAPP practices that will not be covered in the Bill of Rights. Will the Government please consider this course of action, as the most sensible course to ensure freedom of speech and a free media ?

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend speaks with huge passion about these matters. Only yesterday, as he said, he presented a ten-minute rule Bill relating to this issue. He will appreciate that there are issues relating to parliamentary time, and that this is above my pay grade. I feel very strongly that we have done as much as we can on SLAPPs, but we want to go further, because we need legislation. I said at the end of the Backbench Business  debate—my hon. Friend, of course, spoke in it—that I had heard what was said, and that we would now act. The Ministry of Justice took that forward; we had the call for evidence, and we have responded to it. At present, however, our position is, I am afraid, that we will commit ourselves to primary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. I cannot say more than that at this moment, but I am aware of how strongly my hon. Friend feels about the issue.

Chris Bryant: I am sorry, but this is so complacent, and the Government have been systematically complacent about the issue of sanctioning individuals for the last three years. The Foreign Office was not prepared: it did not have a proper sanctions regime in place. We are sectioning only 20% of the people who have been sanctioned by the United States of America, although I have no idea why. Then we allow people to sidestep sanctioning. What the Minister is saying today is basically endorsing what the Treasury did in relation to this particular case, which gives a green light to those people to do it again and again and again. Alisher Usmanov, for instance, is sidestepping sanctioning by a completely different process.
It is time the Government decided as a whole that we are going to do this, and we are going to do it properly. I actually think that we should listen much more to our Back Benchers, because the whole House is united around this and the Government are too complacent.

James Cartlidge: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that I am endorsing any particular action. I have made it very clear that I am not commenting on a specific case. What I have said relates to the general regime that pertains, and is without prejudice in respect of any specific case. The hon. Gentleman also said that we were not prepared. He may not be aware of Operation Orbital, but we have been training Ukrainian soldiers since 2015: 22,000 Ukrainian soldiers.

Chris Bryant: We are talking about sanctions.

James Cartlidge: Well, I am talking about Ukraine, because I think that that is the key issue here. It shows we were preparing for what happened, although, obviously, the situation was unprecedented when Ukraine was invaded. We are clear about the fact that our officials and Departments worked as fast as possible to bring forward an ambitious range of sanctions—which of course happened in March last year when the Prime Minister was Chancellor—and they are having a significant impact on Russia and its economy.

Harriett Baldwin: Although we cannot discuss a specific case, “Wagner Group” is written on the Annunciator and I wanted to add a further question about the regime that we are operating within the Treasury. I urge the Minister to go further than he committed to doing in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, because the Wagner Group is clearly such an evil organisation and what it is doing in Ukraine and across north Africa is so evil. Will the Minister today, from the Dispatch Box, ask OFSI officials to have a red flag system whereby anything related to the Wagner Group is flagged up individually to the Minister responsible?

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend speaks with the expertise of her position as Chair of the Treasury Committee, and I hear what she is saying. I have said that the internal review will take place. She is more than welcome to write to me in her capacity as Chair about that, and I will reply in due course.
My hon. Friend makes the point that this question is about the Wagner Group but that we are saying that we are not commenting on the cases of specific individuals. As a Government, we are absolutely clear:
“The Wagner Group is a Russia-based private military company”.
It has organised the recruitment, co-ordination and planned operations of mercenaries participating in military operations in Ukraine. It is responsible for engaging in and providing support for actions that destabilise Ukraine and undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence of Ukraine.
That is why the most important question is: what are we doing to support Ukraine? Opposition Members have mentioned the Prime Minister, so let us talk about what he did as Chancellor. He was the one who put in place £2.3 billion of military support for Ukraine, which helped the Ukrainians to defend themselves against Russia so that the fight is still being fought to this day.

Liam Byrne: This is outrageous. The Minister has just confessed to the House that sanctions implementation is out of ministerial control. The result is that a waiver was issued for a warlord to sue an English journalist in an English court.
Let us just be clear about the sanctions indictment that this Government issued on 31 December 2020. We sanctioned Prigozhin because he was operating
“a deniable military capability for the Russian State.”
Ten months later, civil servants under the Minister’s control signed off £3,500 for business-class flights, £320 for luxury accommodation at the Belmond Grand Hotel Europe, £150 for subsistence and more. Let us be clear about what the leaked emails from that conversation show. They show that Prigozhin’s lawyers wanted to sue Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat because
“public rebuttal of the article…is one of the reasons for his sanction designation”.
The Minister signed off money for a warlord to prosecute an English journalist in an English court, to undermine the sanctions regime that he is responsible for. This is outrageous and it has to change now.

James Cartlidge: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I did not, in any way, confess that Ministers have no control over the sanctions regime. What I stated very clearly is that in respect of OFSI consideration of legal fees under the sanctions regimes, these decisions are routinely taken by senior civil servants under a delegated framework. That is simply a statement of fact. On the claims for travel and other expenses, let us be clear: under the legal expenses derogation, OFSI is only permitted to issue a licence where the costs, including those relating to disbursements, have been deemed to be reasonable. OFSI therefore scrutinises the hourly fees charged by fee earners, the hours incurred and any other associated costs. It is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate to OFSI’s satisfaction that this statutory reasonableness test is met. If it is not satisfied, OFSI will not be able to issue a licence.

John Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is just the latest example of a dodgy Russian oligarch or similar using legal action to attempt to shut down legitimate journalism? I strongly welcome what he has said about the Government’s intention to act against SLAPPs, but will he commit to publishing the detail of that legislation as soon as possible? Will he look for a means by which it can be introduced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) said, as a stand-alone Bill, which would be preferable? If that is not possible, will he look to use other vehicles, possibly relating to human rights? The media Bill might well provide a vehicle for acting to protect journalism. We need this legislation as fast as possible.

James Cartlidge: I absolutely hear what my right hon. Friend is saying. He is another colleague who has spoken consistently on these points. He knows that when I was at the Ministry of Justice we acted quickly to bring forward measures on SLAPPs; first, we had the call for evidence and then we gave our response. He will appreciate that the parliamentary timetable is above my pay grade, but I hear what he says and I will ensure that, in considering the passage of that legislation, the appropriate stakeholders will respond to him. In the meantime, I want to be clear that SLAPPs are something on which we want to see progress.

Layla Moran: Let us remind ourselves who we are talking about here: the head of the Wagner Group, which is responsible for egregious human rights abuses not just in Ukraine, but in Mali, Sudan and Syria. Absolutely it should be proscribed, and quickly; today is President Zelensky’s birthday and what better gift could we give him? This review is going to take time, so will the Minister assure the House that in the interim a Minister will look at every case until the regime is cleared up? Will the results of this review come to this House so that parliamentarians can scrutinise it? Clearly, the Treasury and the Ministers have not been getting this right, have they?

James Cartlidge: I say to the hon. Lady that she has many ways at her disposal to scrutinise the Government: as she knows, we have Treasury questions coming up; there are Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions; we have recently held debates on Russia, including the one on Russia’s strategy; and a number of statutory instruments have been passed in relation to the sanctions regime. I am sure there will be many other opportunities to scrutinise the Government. As I say, we have only recently taken the decision to hold this internal review, but I will say more on it in due course.

Philip Hollobone: I am sure that all my constituents would regard the Wagner Group as an evil organisation, and its activities in Ukraine, the middle east and Africa are abhorrent. I am sure that my constituents would also support its proscription. In the meantime, will the Minister tell my constituents how many Russian individuals and entities have been sanctioned, what is the value of those sanctions, and what is the value of the economic sanctions that have been imposed against Russia?

James Cartlidge: I totally agree with my hon. Friend, as we all do, about the nature of the Wagner Group. That is not the point. We do have to have due process,  because of the right to legal representation. I believe that, to date, we have sanctioned about 1,200 individuals and 120 entities, and the latest figures show that more than £18 billion of Russian assets have been frozen by our sanctions and that three quarters of foreign companies have reduced operations in Russia. Of course we have no quarrel with the Russian people, although this will have an economic impact. As I said, we are not taking a direct military posture in Ukraine, but we are doing everything else we can, which is why we have to use every tool at our disposal, including a strong economic sanctions package.

Holly Lynch: The Minister has said that it is officials who would routinely take these types of decision, but I hope he will agree that we cannot ever allow it to become routine for us to allow some of the very worst sanctioned individuals to weaponise British laws to go after British journalists. He said that we are going to have a review
“in the light of recent cases”.
Will he confirm whether he is looking into others?

James Cartlidge: Although I cannot comment on individual cases, I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that we should be looking at lawfare. We will be bringing forward that legislation. I do think we have acted quickly on that, but of course it is a complex area of law that we need to get right. She reinforces the point that many colleagues in all parts of the House want to see that legislation come forward, and I have very much noted it.

Rehman Chishti: As a former Minister for sanctions, I agree with the Minister that the UK had led the world in taking a firm, decisive, co-ordinated sanctions approach with our international partners to bring individuals to account for what is going on in Ukraine. This case highlights an issue relating to the granting of licences for legal fees, so how many such cases are there overall? We have sanctioned more than 1,000 individuals, but how many legal licences has the UK granted overall? We co-ordinate our sanctions approach with the United States and the European Union, so how many licences have they given? In this case, was there any co-ordination input from our counterparts in the US? I agree with the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee that things should be referred back to the Minister for decision, rather than having it delegated to an official. What exact date are we looking at for the review?

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend has expertise as a former sanctions Minister. Obviously, I cannot speak for the United States Government but only for ours. I do not have the exact figures, but I will look into it and write to him. To be absolutely clear, I stated a fact when I said that decisions specifically on legal fees under the sanctions regimes are routinely taken by senior civil servants. I said that I was not aware of any case where the Minister had taken a decision. But under our constitution, I am standing here because, ultimately, Ministers are responsible for Department and Government policy. Nevertheless, it is entirely right to make a point  about how these things work operationally. As I said, that is correct. It is a delegated framework for decision making.

Martin Docherty: It seems that the Wagner Group is yet another example of the litany of disaster that sustains what seems to be Londongrad. On the back of this appalling situation, can the Minister update the House on when the British Government will not only introduce legislation on limited partnerships but bring about the review that he talks about?

James Cartlidge: The hon. Gentleman talks about Londongrad; he knows that we are taking extensive measures on economic crime. Let me say to the Members of the Scottish National party who come every time and lecture us on the sanctions regime and so on that the greatest gift we could give to Putin would be for this country to engage in unilateral nuclear disarmament. It is the most extraordinary position to be lectured by the SNP on standing up to Russia, because if we took its advice and adopted its policy, we would undermine NATO and all our efforts to defend ourselves.

James Duddridge: Unfortunately, the Government’s response to the Wagner Group has been inadequate, in part because the matter falls between the FCDO and the Treasury. A number of colleagues, including the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), have called for that organisation to be proscribed. Others, including me, have done so for different reasons, whether it be Serbia, Africa or another conflict area. Will the Minister bring together the two Departments, and look at proscribing the organisation and at the impact that will have on the efficiency of the sanctions regime?

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend has considerable experience as a Foreign Office Minister. He will be aware of how these things work. I am happy to give that reply. I believe that the decision would be for the Foreign Office, but he is right that we must work across Government, and I will write to him on that point.

Chi Onwurah: As well as the Wagner Group’s murderous activities in Ukraine, I am aware, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Africa, of its activities across that continent. It has mercenaries in Mali, the Central African Republic, the Republic of Mozambique and Libya. It is targeting civilians, actively spreading disinformation and propping up autocratic regimes, all to defend Putin’s footprint and ambitions in the continent. Is the Minister saying that it is acceptable for someone to make money from those evil activities, be sanctioned and then get a licence from the British Government to evade those sanctions in order to defend themselves legally? Regardless of what he is saying, what message does that send to our allies across the world?

James Cartlidge: Of course we are not saying that. We are saying that, whether we like it or not, there is a principle under democracy and the rule of law of the right to a defence. Therefore, we have a system in place under the sanctions regime to consider applications for legal fees to be paid from frozen assets. That is a statement of fact on how the system works.

Anna McMorrin: We are continuing to sidestep sanctions. It is disgraceful that the Minister continues to defend that at the Dispatch Box. What message does it send to Ukraine and our allies that our own Treasury is helping one of Putin’s notorious warmongers evade sanctions? If he cannot tell us the number of exemptions and waivers that have been given to individuals, can he find out and commit to come to this House and publish those numbers?

James Cartlidge: The message to Ukraine is that this is a country that believes in the rule of law and democracy. That is why we support Ukraine. That is why the Prime Minister was in Ukraine recently, confirming that we will do everything possible to support them. That is why this country has made a greater contribution to support the brave people of Ukraine than any other country, bar the United States.

Alison Thewliss: I do not know if the Minister has had the chance to read Oliver Bullough’s book “Butler to the World”. There is a copy in the Library if he has not. I recommend it to him because it lays clear Britain’s role in facilitating this kind of lawfare. Oliver Bullough has asked:
“What chance have British journalists got when even our own government is prepared to roll the pitch for oligarchs keen to sue us?”

James Cartlidge: I repeat my earlier point about the actions we are taking on SLAPPs. We have already had the call for evidence and we will bring forward primary legislation.

Andrew Slaughter: Are the Government serious about tackling the use of SLAPPs? Threats of libel action by the Conservative party chairman over his tax affairs, use of the non-disclosure agreement by the Justice Secretary to silence journalists, and the Home Secretary’s attempt to stop the BBC reporting serious domestic violence by an agent of the security services when she was Attorney General, suggest that they prefer concealment over transparency.

James Cartlidge: Yes.

Clive Efford: The approach the Government are taking, case by case they will not deal with specifics, is just an excuse not to answer questions on specific examples that we raise in this House. I know that the bar is very high, but there can be few of Putin’s allies more notorious than Yevgeny Prigozhin. How can the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and say that the decisions were made by a civil servant? How can there be no red flag on the file of someone of such notoriety to say, “Speak to a Minister”? When are you going to get on and do the job you were put there for?

James Cartlidge: The reason that we do not comment on individual cases is well-established. I expect that it would be exactly the same under any other Government. To be clear, the UK sanctions regulations do not exclude payments for any particular legal services from that permission. Excluding such payments can give rise to issues about access to justice. OFSI does not consider it appropriate for HM Treasury to effectively decide whether a case has sufficient merit to be permitted to proceed by  deciding whether to issue a licence permitting legal fees to be paid. Such an approach would raise considerable legal concerns.

Wayne David: The Minister has been asked on a number of occasions how many exceptions and waivers there have been over the last two years. The House is united. This is not a party political issue. We just demand that he answer that question. If he cannot do it now, can he provide the House with details in writing?

James Cartlidge: I said to the former sanctions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), that I would write to him. I will be happy to share that with other colleagues who have asked what information we are able to publish. I will look into that and write to colleagues who have raised that point.

Dave Doogan: It is very difficult to believe that a regime exists now where civil servants can make this decision, especially in the case of Yevgeny Prigozhin. Anyone with a passing relationship with a newspaper would have realised that enabling that to happen would compromise their Ministers, yet they did not have such discussions. Can the Minister assure us that he will review that? I do not want to hang a civil servant out to dry, but somebody needs to take responsibility for the decision. Does he find it a coincidence that, when one of the worst commercial war criminals went to find access to justice, he turned up in London?

James Cartlidge: I have merely stated the fact, and it is the case, that these decisions are routinely taken by senior civil servants. I also said that we are ultimately responsible. We, as Ministers, are accountable to Parliament. That is why we will conduct the internal review.

Owen Thompson: I would be grateful if the Minister could outline to us what it is about billionaire Russians such as Yevgeny Prigozhin and others that make this Government feel that they need special licences so much that they are able to dodge sanctions.

James Cartlidge: To be clear, we do not make any of these decisions with prejudice to the legal case that the individual is pursuing. They have a right under our law to have legal representation. What we have here is a process for considering applications to use frozen assets to fund legal fees in specific cases.

Jim Shannon: I recognise that the Minister has responded and tried to address the questions. We recognise that the Government have at least made some efforts to do so. But in this urgent question the House has identified an anomaly concerning the Wagner Group, which, as everyone has said, is responsible for some of the most brutal crimes across the middle east and Africa. The House wants urgency—that is what we are all asking for. Can the Minister indicate the timescale for that to happen? When will the Wagner Group find that the loophole that it has identified can be closed?

James Cartlidge: This is not a loophole in relation to the Wagner Group. We are clear on all the issues about the Wagner Group. We have acted against it in so much as it is part of the military effort in Ukraine and we have supported Ukraine as far as we are able to, in supporting that military effort. What we are talking about here is a specific point, which is that there is a right to legal representation, so we have a process in place under the sanctions regime to consider applications to use frozen assets to fund legal fees, but as I have said, we will be reflecting on that and reviewing that process.

Lindsay Hoyle: That completes that urgent question. Those who need to leave, please do so before I start the next one.

Energy Bills: Self-disconnection

Kenny MacAskill: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the levels of self-disconnection from power sources and on Government support for energy bills.

Graham Stuart: As I set out to the House on Monday, the Government recognise the importance of protecting customers, including those on prepayment meters. This weekend, the Secretary of State set out a five-point plan on prepayment meters. He wrote to energy suppliers, calling on them to take every step to support consumers in difficulty, particularly those who are at risk of self-disconnection. The Government want to see a much greater effort from suppliers to help consumers in payment difficulties, including offers of additional credit, debt forgiveness or debt advice. As the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) will be aware, Ofgem, as the independent regulator, is in a position to direct suppliers in a way that the Government are not.
The Government understand that this is a difficult time for many families. That is why we have put in place unprecedented cost of living support. It is easy to take that for granted, but it is extensive. It includes the £400 discount under the energy bills support scheme, which has been appearing on electricity bills since the October bills arrived this winter, as well as the energy price guarantee, which does not need any form of application process and directly subsidises energy bills for the typical family this winter to the tune of an additional £900, with equivalent support in Northern Ireland. The Government are also committed to supporting those households without a relationship to a domestic energy supplier with a £400 discount under the energy bills support scheme alternative funding, with eligible households able to apply from 27 February.
It is critical that this support reaches consumers, which is why the Government have also urged suppliers to take action on increasing the number of vouchers being redeemed under the Government’s energy bills support scheme and why we have published a list of supplier redemption rates. We want to encourage suppliers to compare themselves with their rivals and look to do as well as the best, showing which ones are meeting their responsibilities and which need to do more.
There are also established industry rules and processes to reduce the risk of self-disconnection. Suppliers are required to have conversations with customers in arrears to set up a suitable debt repayment plan, taking account of their ability to pay. It is vital that these rules are followed. The Secretary of State wrote to Ofgem to ensure that it takes a robust approach to compliance. In response, Ofgem is reviewing supplier practice, and a key area of its review is the suppliers’ approach to self-disconnection.
But this is continuing work. This afternoon I will be meeting energy suppliers, Ofgem, Energy UK and Citizens Advice to ensure that they hear from the Government, the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members that there is a strong urge in this House to do everything we can to protect everyone this winter, and most of all, the most vulnerable.

Kenny MacAskill: A parliamentary answer on Tuesday disclosed that around 66,000 households in Scotland and 660,000 across Britain had self-disconnected from smart meters in the third quarter of last year. Self-disconnection is a euphemism for simply being unable to afford to heat or power your home. It is as pernicious as the term “collateral damage” is in war. Those afflicted by self-disconnection and all its misery are also civilians, but we are at peace, not war. These figures are for a quarter before prices rose and temperatures dropped. They are also only the tip of the iceberg. The numbers are far greater, as these figures do not cover those on legacy prepayment meters, the numbers of which are substantial, with almost 2 million in the UK and 300,000 in Scotland. They apply to those that operated before smart meters were brought in and they will substantially increase the numbers so tragically afflicted.
In an energy-rich country, fuel poverty is an obscenity. Given this heartless cruelty in a cold winter, will the Minister, first, end the forced installation of prepayment meters forthwith? Secondly, will he immediately abolish the perverse higher standing charges and tariffs for prepayment meters? Thirdly, will he as a matter of urgency bring in a social tariff for the poorest and most vulnerable?

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He rightly raises the issue of those who are self-disconnecting. I think we can be proud of the fact that the numbers of people who were physically disconnected from power and heat last year were in single figures. The installation of prepayment meters has to be an absolute last resort. We must insist that people do not end up being physically disconnected from an energy supply. It is important to highlight that all suppliers are required to offer emergency credit when the meter runs out. This should give consumers enough time to top up their meters. Traditional meters have an automatic setting that allows for a set amount of emergency credit to be used after the customer is notified that the topped-up credit has been used.
As I have said, we are committed to having the right regime in place. In 2009, there were issues around the additional costs of prepayment meters. Ofgem had responsibility for supervising that at that time, as it does now, and it looked into the issues and brought in a regime to ensure that any costs and charges were commensurate with the actual costs of delivery. To a certain extent that has all been superseded by the energy price cap brought in by this Government, which limits the amount that anyone can charge for their energy.

James Duddridge: It is excellent to have such a high-calibre Minister in such a crucial role. At Prime Minister’s questions I raised the issue of the energy bills support scheme, which has helped 99% of my constituents. I am interested in the report that identifies the worst and best performers on prepayment vouchers. The Minister said that he was going to meet some of those people today. Will he name and shame—and praise—people on that list and try to get those right at the bottom at least up to the median level, if not into the top quartile?

Graham Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. We are absolutely focused on that, and we all have a role to play in increasing awareness of the vouchers, which are so valuable to people. We want to  see more being redeemed, and the numbers are going up consistently. We have published the list of suppliers and we have already brought them together so that they can share best practice. I wanted to publish the list so that it could be seen not only by the House but by the suppliers’ chief executive officers, who I hope will talk to their teams about why they are lower down the list. If all of them, all of us in this House and everyone in the voluntary and other sectors and in local authorities do everything possible to raise awareness, we can lift the number of people who get that help, to which they are entitled.

Roger Gale: I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson.

Alan Whitehead: One way or another, there are more than 3 million households on prepayment meters. With the rapid rise in prices and the continuing energy crisis, they are now all at risk of unseen disconnection, because they simply cannot afford the huge bills and constant meter top-ups they are facing. Energy companies know this, and they do not want to be saddled with account customers in distress, so we have seen 500,000 warrants obtained, particularly over the last year—18% up on previous numbers—to drive customers in trouble with their accounts into forcibly having prepayment meters installed in their homes, whether they want them or not. Customer disconnection is then not the problem for the energy company or the Government thereafter. For most customers, the energy companies can simply change the supply of smart meters from credit to prepay without a warrant being issued.
What are the Government doing about all this? Polite letters are not enough. Will the Minister now enforce measures to ensure that the energy companies stop issuing warrants and switching smart meters to prepay mode while prices remain high and the energy crisis continues? What are the Government actively doing to seek out and help those who have self-disconnected and are now energy destitute?
The Government have said, and will no doubt say again today, that help is on its way in the form of Government support for energy bills, yet precisely the customers most likely to self-disconnect are getting much less help than they should. As the Minister has said, 30% of the vouchers available to customers on prepayment meters remain unclaimed, for a variety of reasons. And the alternative help scheme devised for those who indirectly pay their bill, whether they live in park homes, communal buildings or district heating schemes, has simply not arrived. It was expected in December and then January, but we now hear it will not be active until the end of February—five months after account customers started to get assistance.
What are the Government doing to ensure that vouchers get through and are claimed by prepay customers, and that barriers to claiming are overcome? Why is the alternative help scheme so consistently delayed? Do the Government just not care about help for those living in park homes and other tenures, or are they incompetent in organising that help in a timely way?

Graham Stuart: Those who know the hon. Gentleman will know he is normally better than that. He knows, because we talk about it, just how hard the Department  is working to make sure we get these things in place. We are proud that we got the EBSS discount out to an unprecedented 29 million people. I make no apology for prioritising getting the bulk of it out there.
The EBSS alternative funding sounds simple, but it is not. It is a novel scheme with ambitious timescales. It is a complex cohort with a range of different energy arrangements, including off grid, direct to commercial and via intermediaries. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) chunters from the Front Bench, but she should recognise the complexity of this challenge.
When we were looking at February delivery for the portal, I challenged it. A few days ago, I met the four pilot local authorities, which are across the devolved nations of Great Britain, to talk about the situation. We must make sure that we sort out all those complexities because, if we do not get it right first time, the pilot authorities say it would delay payments to consumers. My priority is to get funding to people as quickly as possible.
Where people are not already receiving the main EBSS, we have to look after public money by making sure their bank accounts are verified and legitimate, and that they live at the address. Those records are held across Government, local authorities and banks, so a complex case-management system is required. Local authorities need to be able to access the system securely, which requires multi-factor authentication, and some local authorities do not have the ability to implement that quickly. Robust fraud checks are necessary in an application-based system, to which there is no alternative for this group. Each iteration of the application process needs to be tested.
I am confident that we will have the portal up by or on Monday 27 February. We will work with local authorities, upon which we rely, and I thank the four pilot authorities and other local authorities. We need to make sure that their staff are trained, that the complexities are dealt with and that they have a robust system, so that they can swiftly process applications and make sure families get the money they so direly need. I fully accept the point about the need for speed.

Selaine Saxby: This Government have given huge energy bill support to businesses and households this winter. Although I fully understand the complexity of the situation for park homes, what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give to the multiple residents who have contacted me, from Mill on the Mole near South Molton and from Berrynarbor Park near Ilfracombe, that everything possible is being done to get energy payments to them as rapidly as possible? MPs know where their park homes are. If there is anything I can do to deliver this support locally, I would be more than happy to assist.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is right that identifying the location of park homes might sound relatively simple, and I hope I have made it clear that there are levels of complexity that have to be dealt with. We are doing everything possible to ensure this is done as quickly as possible. Because of council tax bills, this is the busiest time of year for the local authority staff who deal with this. We must have a system that stands up, is robust and delivers on time.
As might be expected, I pushed back in every way possible to see if we could open the portal in January, but we could not do so without risking the confidence and support of those local authorities. We will make sure that we have it in place and that we deliver it in the right way.
For months, my hon. Friend has rightly made sure that my focus has remained on this issue by reminding me of her constituents and their need for this help.

Roger Gale: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Alan Brown: Come April, 8.4 million households will be in fuel poverty—that is almost a third of all households—and talk of capping average bills at £2,500 or £3,000 a year means nothing to people who cannot afford to pay their bill or top up their meter. People on prepayment meters are penalised with higher standing charges, so those who either choose or are forced into not using energy build up debt from these standing charges. Imagine getting into debt despite not using energy.
These people are more likely to have disabilities or suffer ill health. They are more likely to die prematurely and to have mental health issues due to the struggles of daily life. I do not know what their life is like, and I know for a fact that the Government cannot claim to understand what their life is like. We now need a proper social tariff and a further energy bill support package as a priority.
Much more needs to be done to ensure the vouchers are redeemed, rather than the Government just asking the companies to publish data and urging them to do more. The Government need to put in place a temporary ban on the forced installation of prepayment meters. Is it not a disgrace that energy-rich Scotland’s Union dividend is people who are unable to turn on their gas when Scotland is a net exporter of gas?

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman said this support has absolutely no meaning, or something close to it. The meaning for those on benefits has been £800 of additional cost of living support, on top of the £400 EBSS support and the £900 of support organised through the Treasury. This is real support. The cheap rhetoric we have heard from the Scottish nationalists might be typical, but even so it is disappointing.
The hon. Gentleman says we need to do more than just urging suppliers to do more and to publish data. There is an application. People have to take up their vouchers, and they have to use them. I am all ears to any contribution he would like to make on how to build that up, because the whole of society—families, community groups, MPs and political parties—has to get the message out to people about these vouchers. I am confident that they are being sent out by the suppliers, so we have to encourage people to cash them in at a time when they need them most. There is always a danger that the people who need it most—we do not have the data—may be the ones least likely to use it. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) can make cheap points and shout at me from a sedentary position, or he can engage seriously and properly by trying to do everything possible to get a system that makes sure people get the help they deserve.  That is what I want. If he thinks there are any practical steps that we should be delivering immediately, he should say so.
We have said that we will look at a social tariff and at how vulnerable people are looked after, but we have to look at it in a considered manner. I am proud of the support that the Government have put in place, and I believe it stands up internationally. We are determined to support people, particularly the most vulnerable, so that they do not suffer at a time of extreme energy stress.

Philip Hollobone: Across the country and in the Kettering constituency, everyone should be benefiting from the energy price guarantee, which saves the average household £900 this winter on their bills. Everyone should be getting the £400 energy bills support scheme in £66 or £67 monthly payments. Those in bands A to D households should receive £150 council tax rebate. What extra are the Government doing for the 8 million lowest income households, most of whom are on universal credit, pensioners and disabled people who are most likely to have need for prepayment meters?

Graham Stuart: As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is a series of programmes to support people in those positions, and £800 for all people on benefits in addition to the sums that he has already itemised for the House.

Jon Trickett: The Minister prays in aid the money that is being given to households across the country, and I acknowledge that that is a significant amount of money, but it is not working, is it? One prepayment meter is issued every 10 seconds. Millions of people live in fuel poverty. My constituent, for example, is disabled and trapped in his house. He had a prepayment meter imposed on him, but no voucher. He was left in freezing cold conditions in the run-up to Christmas. That just is not acceptable. I am afraid to say that polite letters from the Secretary of State or cups of tea this afternoon with the Minister will not hack it. Does he agree that it is time that the Government took legal powers to intervene directly in the energy market in order to protect the people of this country?

Graham Stuart: That kind of crude socialist intervention in the market would be counterproductive, and it would be typical of measures that come from the Labour party. Its members go in with high talk of helping the weakest and poorest and they come up with policies that have exactly the opposite effect.

Sara Britcliffe: I wish to follow on from some of the questions regarding the £400 payment for park homes. Although I understand the complexities of the issue, will the Minister set out how, once this scheme goes live, he will communicate with the residents of park homes so that they do access the portal? Furthermore, will there be an alternative way to access the application process rather than just through an online portal?

Graham Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend for her extremely pertinent question. We will be promoting through a whole array of groups and, of course, local authorities are key partners in that. We will be looking  for support from colleagues across the House, from local authorities, and from the voluntary sector. We have also been doing a larger-scale public communications exercise than the Department has ever previously engaged with. In answer to her final question: for those who are not easily able to access the Government portal, there will be a telephone support service as well. Again, this will be an application-based system. We will not get to 100%, but I hope that we can work constructively. All ideas are welcome so that we do everything we can to maximise the take-up and make sure that people get the support to which they are entitled.

Munira Wilson: My constituents living in houseboats and on heat networks have been left out in the cold for months without support or information. This is despite repeated assurances from the Minister about the vital £400 from the energy bills support scheme alternative funding. Applications for that were promised to be opened by the end of January, yet, yesterday, in a private briefing for Members, the Minister revealed that the earliest that the applications would be open is the end of February, with money not coming through until the end of March. Yesterday, he also replied to a written question in writing to a Member of this House that the scheme was still going to open in January. Does the Minister accept that his answers to Members of this House have been misleading and that he has broken promises to off-grid customers? What on earth is he doing to ensure that my constituents and people up and down this country get the support they need in the freezing cold right now?

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think she will find that the letter stated that the Government had announced that the scheme would open in January, which was true—we did announce that we aimed to open it in January. The pilot and engagement with local authorities has shown that we need to delay that to February, so I organised briefings yesterday afternoon to make sure that all Members of the House had heard about that. I am also seeking to notify the House as quickly as possible by writing to Select Committee Chairmen and others to let them know. We are doing everything possible to make sure that we have a robust system in place. I set out that this is a novel system: it is complex and it does rely on local authorities. It was after personally meeting representatives of those pilot local authorities that I came to the decision. I felt that this was the right thing to do to ensure speedy delivery of this support to her houseboat owners among others. It is also worth noting that they have seen support if they come through a commercial supplier of electricity through the energy bill relief scheme, but I want to see them get their £400 as well, and I want a system that works, is effective and is as quick as possible.

Hilary Benn: The Minister appeared to say in answer to an earlier question that no one should be physically disconnected from their energy supply. If I heard that correctly, and if that is indeed the Government’s position, does that extend to people on prepayment meters who cannot connect themselves to their energy supply because they simply do not have the money to top up the meter? If that is the case, I would be interested to hear what further action he will take to prevent that happening in all cases.

Graham Stuart: The point about a physical disconnection—I think that there may have been only one in the UK last year—is that it differs from what happens with a prepayment meter. By having a prepayment meter, no matter what pre-existing debts someone may have, as soon as they have money to put credit on, they can recommence their energy supply. Physical disconnection is when a person is literally cut off and then has to re-apply to get their supply back. That is an alternative that I do not want to see. The prepayment system is an absolute last resort for those who run up large energy bills, do not engage with the supplier and show no sign that they will pay. Those people must be able to do something and the installation of a prepayment meter, if absolutely necessary, as a last resort and under warrant if they will not engage in any other way, means that household still has access to energy, so long as they put some credit on. That is a lot better than bailiffs and a total physical cut-off. We can be proud of the fact that we do not have people cut off from their energy supply, although, admittedly, as the right hon. Member says, they have to put money on the meter in order to be able to access it.

Alison Thewliss: I have had many emails from people who live in Dalmarnock and are served by a communal heating system operated by Switch2, which is not currently under Government regulation. These residents have received a letter informing them that the price per kilowatt hour is going from 11p to 32p, with additional standing charges. Will the Minister tell me what support these people can expect from the Government? At the moment, with the lack of legislation and the lack of eligibility for other schemes, they are left with heating that they cannot afford.

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. If she will follow that up with some details, I will happily write to her and come back on the specific points she has raised.

Stephen Doughty: I genuinely appreciated the Minister coming to meet us yesterday to discuss these issues, but he will have seen the shock and disbelief in the room when he made his announcement, not least as he wrote to me just last week to say that the scheme would open in January, and I have been asking him about this since October on behalf of constituents in Sully who are affected. Nearly 1 million people across the country have had no form of support, in lots of different types of building, as he well knows. Can he be absolutely clear: when that portal opens on 27 February, how long will it take for those people to get the payment? Are we talking about a month, two months, or will they have to wait until the summer? What advice can he give them in the interim? Should they allow debt to build up? Should they turn off their heating? What should they actually do, and what should the management companies do, particularly in communal buildings, which potentially owe significant amounts, with residents having not paid their Bills? What is his advice to them?

Graham Stuart: The decision was made yesterday and I was able to brief colleagues, including the hon. Gentleman—I thank him for attending the meeting—yesterday afternoon, so I have tried to move as quickly as possible. Of course, until a decision is made, Government  policy stays as it is until it is changed, and that explains the letter. I certainly hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) would accept that I was not being disingenuous. We moved to communicate as quickly as possible once the decision had been made.
The payment will go through local authorities. Much as I would love to give a define date, it depends when people apply. We will be encouraging people to apply from 27 February—if that is when the scheme launches—and then local authorities will be carrying out their verification. We will triage that first, to minimise the imposition on local authorities, but they will have to go through a process to get the payment out. That means I cannot give a definitive date, much as I would like to, and much as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is right to suggest that it would benefit people to know when they will get the support to which they are entitled. I hope he understands that, administratively, if I gave a date there would be a risk that I would be back before the House again to explain why, in some cases, it was not delivered. We will do it as quickly as we can but, having talked to the pilot local authorities, they feel that we are taking the most robust approach with the best chance of getting the payment out as quickly as possible.

Alistair Carmichael: For those who are getting support for alternative fuels, what reach does the Minister expect the scheme to have for those whom the Government have identified as relying on alternative fuels, and how long does he expect it will take for the remainder to get their money?

Graham Stuart: Following this urgent question, I will seek an answer for those on alternative fuels who are in the majority group; it might be where we are at in our data development, but I have not seen a number on that. If I can access that, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will seek a way of sharing it with the House. Most people will be paid automatically with a credit to their energy bill, which will be ready at the beginning of February. I suppose that may not appear on the bill until March, but we will have that up and running automatically for those with an energy bill. We hope to use the same portal that is being used for the EBSS £400 alternative fuel payment, and to open it very shortly after the opening of the EBSS alternative portal. When I have further specific dates that I can share, I will do so.

Mike Amesbury: A number of constituents have got in touch with me from Castle View House, where several flats are sub-metered. They are desperate, and have been for some time, for payments to get through the door. I know that right hon. and hon. Members across the House also have constituents in that situation, many in park homes. I was not at all convinced by the Minister’s answer that the portal will be open on 27 February and the scheme will be in operation. What guarantee is there?

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight the residents of Castle View House and the park home residents in his constituency, who are waiting and expecting to hear that they will get the support to which they are entitled. I am confident that we will have the scheme open on or by 27 February, and I and my  teams will do everything to make sure that happens. We are working through local authorities, so we must ensure that we have all the procedures—some of which I touched on—properly worked through, and that we have local authority staff trained up so that they can then process the payment. I am afraid that is as far as I can go right now. It is a novel system; those working in local authorities on council tax are used to collecting money in rather than putting it out, but we are doing everything we can and I am grateful for the work of local authorities for the commitment they have shown, at a really busy time, in Wales, Scotland and England to try to make sure the payment is delivered.

Daisy Cooper: Up to 170 park home households in Frogmore Home Park, Newlands Park, Highview Park and other areas of my constituency are still waiting for their £400 energy support payment. I first raised the issue of my park homes with the Minister seven months ago, and only last night, by chance, we discovered that the scheme would not be open by the end of this month. There are freezing temperatures this week. We cannot wait another month for the Government to get around to setting up a portal, which will then take much longer to release the funds. I suggested to the Minister last night that he immediately empower local authorities to distribute emergency funds to those households. Will he do that today?

Graham Stuart: The hon. Lady has passionately espoused the interests of her constituents over a considerable time, and I share and understand her frustration. She did not find this out yesterday by chance, but in a briefing with me that was arranged for Members right across the House. I am absolutely focused on making sure that the portal opens on or before Monday 27 February, and that we then get the money out to those who are entitled to it, with due protections for public money as well as a focus on delivery for them.

Hywel Williams: Wales has a smaller population than Scotland, yet the number of smart meters disconnected in Wales is consistently higher.  In quarter 3 last year it was 75,000 disconnected in Wales, compared with 66,000 in Scotland; in Q2 it was 80,000 compared with 69,000; and in Q1 last year it was 60,000 compared with 50,000. I am indebted to the  hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) for enlightening me on these figures—perhaps the Minister can also enlighten me on why they are like that.

Graham Stuart: I am meeting suppliers this afternoon, and I will be pressuring them and continuing to talk to them about ensuring that they do everything possible to support people and provide them with emergency credit, repayment programmes and everything possible to avert their getting in a position where they have to have forcible implementation of prepayment meters, and to look after those who are on them and ensure that they are in a position where they can continue to access their heat and light.

Anne McLaughlin: Next week I am launching the all-party parliamentary group on prepayment meters, and one of the first things we were looking at is so-called self-disconnection. Given that I wrote to the Secretary of State in September  expressing my concerns about this issue and have received zero response; given that the Government have twice tried to block my Pre-Payment Meters (Self-Disconnection) Bill, which seeks to outlaw self-disconnection; and given that I have had no response from BEIS to my debate in this Chamber on more general issues around prepayment meters last December, which was supported across the House, I ask the Secretary of State to commit today to meeting the APPG as a matter of urgency. We have been waiting long enough. The Minister can use terms such as physical disconnection all he likes, but the impact is the same: if people cannot access gas and electricity, they are stuck, and in 2022 somebody on a prepayment meter was disconnected from their energy supply every 10 seconds.

Graham Stuart: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her focus on and proper championing of this issue. I am not the Secretary of State but, as the Minister for Energy and Climate, I will instruct my office to reach out to hers and try to set up a meeting with the APPG sooner rather than later.

Holly Lynch: The Minister can be in no doubt about the strength of feeling on this, because we are going to have to go back to our constituents—who, we having shared with them his own words, were expecting the alternative fund at the end of last year and then in December—and disappoint them again with the news that it is not coming in January. He said that local authority capacity issues are part of the delay in rolling out the payment, so what consideration has he given to supporting local authorities with additional resources so that they can roll it out faster? As I shared with him yesterday, a member of police staff has told me that she cannot afford to put her heating on. We need to make sure that people, including dedicated public servants, can stay warm, so how can we get it rolled out?

Graham Stuart: I do not think I identified capacity issues as such; it is more about a set of complex issues that need to be resolved and then, having resolved them, providing suitable guidance for local authorities so that they are in a position to make the payment. I did say that it is challenging times for local authorities, because they are also doing council tax, but I am not hearing from them that there is some quick fix. We need people who are already trained to be able to use the systems, and it is through those systems that we will be able to ensure that the payment goes out. We are working with local authorities on the pilots, and I am grateful for their help in shaping the system and the guidance that will go to the other local authorities across the country.

Drew Hendry: The Minister must realise that promises of reviews by Ofgem into the activities of energy companies will come far too late for people who are struggling now to pay their bills—indeed, who cannot get anywhere near paying them. I am already waiting for a promised meeting with Ministers about the malpractice of overpayments being routinely kept by energy companies when they are consumers’ money, and direct debits having shot up well above the level at which they should be. The Minister has the power to turn up the heat on Ofgem: will he do it?

Graham Stuart: I meet Ofgem regularly—we will be meeting again this afternoon—and those are precisely the kinds of conversations we have. Ofgem is working hard on coming down on the suppliers and it has looked into making sure that suppliers do not build up unjustified credits. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is Ofgem’s role as the independent regulator to supervise, regulate and ensure that the licence conditions under which suppliers operate are fulfilled. We are doing everything possible to ensure that we hold Ofgem’s feet to the fire while it holds suppliers’ feet to the fire.

Helen Morgan: People who live in marinas and on houseboats are sub-metered, and in my constituency, they are often off the gas grid. Not only do they use prepayment cards—so they self-disconnect when they cannot afford energy—but they are being charged a pass-through commercial rate, often with 20% VAT added on. They have not had help with their heating or their electricity, and they are self-disconnecting. Does the Minister accept that offering money in the spring, when those people have already gone through a terrible cold winter, is just too late?

Graham Stuart: I share the hon. Lady’s frustration. Obviously we would have liked it to get to them sooner, but I have laid out the reasons why it has not. If their electricity is supplied by a commercial supplier, the energy bill relief scheme has been directly reducing their bills through that supplier. We have put in place legislation to require those Government interventions to be passed on to the end recipient.

Jonathan Edwards: The Minister mentioned in his initial reply the energy price guarantee, which has, of course, been extended until March 2024 for gas customers. There has been no further announcement, however, for those who use alternative fuels—oil, liquefied petroleum gas or wood pellets—to heat their homes. Can he give the House assurances that he will put pressure on the Treasury to make an announcement about next winter for households that use alternative fuels?

Graham Stuart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will look carefully at the cost pressures across different markets, as we did when we came up with the alternative fuel payment, which was originally £100 before we doubled it to £200. I know that that is making a difference in Northern Ireland, and it will make a difference in rural areas around the UK.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Government and the Minister very much for all the help that they have been able to give businesses and households—there is much to appreciate, and we need to put that on record.
Just this morning, a number of businesses back home in Newtownards town, which the Minister visited last week, have informed me that they are seeking small business support. They say that they have turned their lights off, that they are supplying thermals for staff to keep warm, and that they cannot afford the current prices. Some have informed me that they face bankruptcy. Would the Minister consider a small business relief fund that could be applied to businesses throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Graham Stuart: It was a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman in his constituency last week; to meet community organisations there, including the Consumer Council, which hosted us; and to learn about the situation for people in Northern Ireland who are struggling with their energy bills. He is right to highlight the fact that businesses and others are struggling. That is why we brought in the EBRS, and why we will have the energy bills discount scheme from April. We will keep that under advisement.
Of course, in Northern Ireland—more than in the rest of the UK—many companies use alternative fuels, and we are, again, working on ensuring that we put support in place as soon as we can. But because of the nature of that, there is no central database, and we have to manage public funds. It sounds simple—if I were in opposition, I would probably shout at the Government to get it done, because it sounds so easy—but it turns out that it is complex. We are working as hard as we can to put those schemes in place a place even though energy is devolved and we should not have any responsibility at all—we have stepped up because we have had to, and we will continue to do so in this particular area. I very much hope to see the institutions restored in Northern Ireland and the Northern Irish people served by the people they elect.

Patrick Grady: There really cannot be any justification for the premium charges that are associated with prepayment meters. The energy companies are getting cash up front from customers before any energy is used. As I said to the Minister on Monday, they must be able to bank that and earn interest on it, as with those who accumulate credit balances and usually pay in arrears. Perhaps he can raise that point with the companies when he meets them this afternoon. Will he let us know what their response is in the letter that he promised me on Monday?

Graham Stuart: Ofgem is responsible for regulating that area. As I understand it, Ofgem looked into it in 2009 and made some changes then. It required suppliers to make cost-reflective charges only—charges had to be based genuinely on the additional costs of delivery—but that has, to a certain extent, been obviated by the energy price cap, which has put a tariff limit on what any company can charge. I will make sure that I get a letter to the hon. Gentleman on this topic.

Bills Presented

National Parks (Camping) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Richard Foord presented a Bill to provide for a right to camp in National Parks; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 235).

General Election (Public Support) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Richard Burgon presented a Bill to provide for a mechanism for an early general election to be held in certain circumstances, where the public has demonstrated support for such an election; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March, and to be printed (Bill 237).

First-Aid (Mental Health)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Dean Russell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make mental health first-aid part of first-aid training requirements; and for connected purposes.
This is my second attempt to bring this Bill to the House, and as before, I will speak about the sensitive topics of mental health and suicide, share the scale of public support through the excellent “Where’s Your Head At?” campaign, outline the economic and business benefits, and share why the Bill will bring hope to those who are struggling to cope in times of difficulty. Ultimately, at the heart of the Bill is a simple request: to create parity between mental health and physical health first aid in the workplace.
There is no doubting that the world has changed, not only in post-covid era but through the rise in technology, the relentlessness of social media, and an “always-on” culture. Our working environments are shifting rapidly but we, as humans, have not changed. We still have emotions; we still feel love and loss, happiness and grief, and joy and pain. We have goals and ambitions, and hopes and expectations. Sometimes they can be overwhelming, and at times we can find it hard to express how we feel. When we feel vulnerable, we may find it hard to know who to speak to when times are tough.
In my previous attempt to introduce the Bill, I spoke about the impact of hearing, as a teenager, my sister sob when she heard the news of a friend’s death by suicide. To frame the importance of this Bill, I ask those listening to think for a moment about someone they may have lost in their own lives. What would we all give to hold a loved one’s hand just one more time, to hear them knock at the door just once more, or to have just one more conversation? What would we give to have that loved one here today?
As I have said before, if suicide were a virus, we would be on the hunt for a vaccine. If loneliness were a disease, would we not search for a cure? At the extreme end, we are talking about saving lives with this Bill. The House of Commons Library reports that in 2021 alone, 6,319 deaths by suicide were registered in Great Britain. Although suicide rates have declined over recent decades, and, thankfully, the 20th-century stigma and shame around mental health have shifted, there is always more to do. That is why I am backing “Baton of Hope”, a new charity campaign that is part of a growing movement aspiring to a zero-suicide society. Achieving that will not be easy, and of course we cannot bring back those we have lost, but with early intervention and—through the Bill—the right signposting at the right time, we could prevent the loss of others.
The Bill is not just about preventing suicide, as important as that is. It is also about reflecting the reality of modern society, especially post covid. There is no doubt that mental health issues are on the rise. Stress, depression and anxiety have become the leading cause of lost working days since the 1990s. Let me share some data. The Centre for Mental Health estimates that 10 million more people will need mental health support as a direct result of the pandemic. That growing need was perhaps  reflected most strongly this week, when it was announced that £150 million of additional funding for mental health services was going into the system. I was pleased that Watford General Hospital in my constituency received £355,000 for mental health services to support my constituents and those across west Hertfordshire.
According to the British Safety Council and the Health and Safety Executive, nearly 1 million workers who suffer work-related stress, depression or anxiety will lose an average of 18.6 days a year. That is in the context of 17 million days lost due to poor mental health in 2021 and 2022. That brings me to the all-important business benefits of this Bill.
According to a 2022 report by Deloitte on mental health at work, the cost of mental health to UK businesses is a staggering £56 billion a year. According to GoodShape, a business in my constituency that partners with leading organisations to track and improve the wellbeing of staff, 54% of workers who take more than two days of leave due to mental health-related absences will go on to leave their job. The Deloitte report also indicates that the return on investing in staff is good, with £5 back for every £1 spent, so it cannot be argued that the investment is not worthwhile.
A pre-pandemic report indicated that a new thing called presenteeism, where employees are physically at work but not productive, was costing UK employers up to £29 billion a year. Where presenteeism relates to mental health, it can have a more detrimental impact on absences. Ensuring mental health is firmly on the business agenda is not a burden, but an investment that ultimately benefits a business’s bottom line. There is real public support, too, thanks to the work of Natasha Devon and “Where’s Your Head At?”, for which I am proud to be an official ambassador. More than 200,000 people signed a petition supporting the principles behind this Bill way before I joined Parliament.
I have seen the benefits directly myself. In my constituency of Watford, I set an ambition to train 1,000 people in mental health first aid awareness, which I originally anticipated would take about a decade to achieve. Incredibly, we have just reached the 600th person trained by that programme, thanks to the incredible support of Camelot and the Watford and West Herts chamber of commerce. Many more are trained locally through other schemes, too, and that is because there are now many more providers of mental health first aid and mental health first aid awareness training. Some, such as the Mental Health First Aid England group, which helped with some insights for my speech today, offer many other courses, and Departments offer free courses, which are available to many.
I would not seek to limit the options or be too prescriptive, because workplaces are diverse. From offices to hair salons, and from construction sites to supermarkets, each worker is different. Behind every statistic is a person with family and friends. They are our mothers, our brothers, our sisters and our fathers. They are the veterans and the volunteers. That is why I believe the power in this Bill lies in making sure it is flexible enough to work for all. We spend so much time in the workplace, yet we cannot always be ourselves when we are there. It can be hard to show our true face when times are tough, because we aim as always to be professional.
People do not wear bandages to show where they have anxiety and depression. Many learn to hide their pain in fear of damaging their career. Many learn to  smile, when really they would like to run a mile to escape the situation they find themselves in. I must be clear that mental health first aiders are not expected to be counsellors or psychologists, but just like physical first aiders, who are not expected to be paramedics or surgeons, this Bill will simply mean that workers have someone to signpost them to the support and help they need when they need it.
Before I conclude, I take this short opportunity to say to anyone listening to this speech who may be having difficulties right now that tough times can pass. Sometimes the mind can be a cruel echo chamber full of unwanted thoughts and hurt. Speaking can be a powerful release valve, reducing the pressure and stress. Please ask for help if you need it. It is not a weakness to ask for help; it is a strength.
To the Minister sitting on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), I say that I truly hope the Government will also have the strength to back this Bill. Yes, I am back for a second time. Unfortunately, I never give up, and I will not give up on this Bill. Even if I did, there are so many more behind me who would want to make it happen. This is not a request that will go away, and I will be back again if needed. This Bill would make a small change with a massive impact. I humbly request that it be given due consideration and passed into law.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Dean Russell, Andy Carter, Jonathan Gullis, Jim Shannon, Virginia Crosbie, Dr Neil Hudson, Nick Fletcher, Lia Nici, Siobhan Baillie, Sarah Atherton, David Duguid and Debbie Abrahams present the Bill.
Dean Russell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February, and to be printed (Bill 236.)

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee
[Relevant documents: the Eleventh Report of the Treasury Committee of Session 2021-22, Economic crime, HC 145; and the Government Response, Session 2021-22, HC 1261; the oral evidence taken before the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee on 8 November 2022, on Fraudulent company registrations: Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill , HC 862; the letter from UK Finance to the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee relating to Fraudulent company registrations and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, dated 21 December 2022; and the letter from the Minister for Business, Energy and Corporate Responsibility to the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee relating to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, dated 28 December 2022.]

New Clause 14 - Approved regulators: information powers relating to economic crime

“(1) The Legal Services Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 111 insert—

“Part 5A: Approved regulators: information powers

111A The Law Society’s information powers relating to economic crime
111A The Law Society’s information powers relating to economic crime
(1) The Law Society may, by notice, require a person falling within subsection (3) to—
(a) provide information, or information of a description, specified in the notice;
(b) produce documents, or documents of a description, specified in the notice.
(2) The Law Society may only exercise the power in subsection (1) in relation to information or documents which the Law Society considers it necessary or expedient to have for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance of its regulatory functions for purposes relating to the prevention or detection of economic crime.
(3) The persons are—
(a) a solicitor;
(b) an employee of a solicitor;
(c) a body recognised under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985;
(d) an employee or manager of, or person with an interest in, such a body;
(e) a licensed body;
(f) a manager or employee of a licensed body;
(g) a non-authorised person who has an interest or an indirect interest, or holds a material interest (within the meaning of Part 5 of this Act), in a licensed body;
(h) a person who was, but is no longer, of a description mentioned within any of paragraphs (a) to (g).
(4) A notice under subsection (1)—
(a) may specify the manner and form in which the information is to be provided or document produced;
(b) must specify the period within which the information is to be provided or document produced;
(c) may require the information to be provided, or document to be produced, to the Law Society or to a person specified in the notice.
(5) The Law Society may pay to any person such reasonable costs as may be incurred by that person in connection with the provision of any information, or production of any document, by that person pursuant to a notice under subsection (1).
(6) The Law Society, or a person specified under subsection (4)(c) in a notice, may take copies of or extracts from a document produced pursuant to a notice under subsection (1).
(7) In this section “economic crime” has the meaning given by section 179(1) of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.
111B Enforcement of information powers relating to economic crime
(1) If a person refuses or otherwise fails to comply with a notice under section 111A(1), the Law Society may apply to the High Court for an order requiring the person to comply with the notice or with such directions for the like purpose as may be contained in the order.
(2) On an application under subsection (1), the High Court may order a person other than the person to whom the notice was given to provide information or produce documents specified in the notice, if the High Court is satisfied that there is reason to suspect that the information or documents have come into the possession or custody or under the control of that other person.
(3) Section 111A(4) applies in relation to an order under subsection (2) as it applies in relation to a notice under section 111A(1).
(4) An order under this section may direct the Law Society to pay such reasonable costs as may be incurred by a person in connection with the provision of any information, or production of any document, by that person pursuant to the order.
(5) A person may take copies of or extracts from a document produced to them pursuant to an order under this section.
111C Provision of information relating to economic crime by other persons
(1) The Law Society may apply to the High Court for an order requiring a person who does not fall within section 111A(3) to—
(a) provide information, or information of a description, specified in the order, or
(b) produce documents, or documents of a description, specified in the order.
(2) The High Court may make an order under this section only if it is satisfied—
(a) that it is likely that the information or document is in the possession or custody of, or under the control of, the person, and
(b) that it is necessary or expedient for the Law Society to have the information or document for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance of its regulatory functions for purposes relating to the prevention or detection of economic crime.
(3) Section 111A(4) applies in relation to an order under this section as it applies in relation to a notice under section 111A(1).
(4) An order under this section may direct the Law Society to pay such reasonable costs as may be incurred by a person in connection with the provision of any information, or production of any document, by that person pursuant to the order.
(5) A person may take copies of or extracts from a document produced to them pursuant to an order under this section.
(6) In this section “economic crime” has the meaning given by section 179(1) of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.
Other approved regulators: information powers relating to economic crime
111D Order to confer information powers on other approved regulators
(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order amend this Part so as to—
(a) provide for sections 111A to 111C to apply in relation to an approved regulator other than the Law Society as they apply in relation to the Law Society, and
(b) specify the persons to whom notices under section 111A(1) may be given by that approved regulator.
(2) The Lord Chancellor may make an order under this section in relation to an approved regulator only if—
(a) the Board has made a recommendation in accordance with section 111E in relation to that approved regulator, and
(b) the persons specified in the order to whom notices under section 111A(1) may be given by that approved regulator are the same as those persons specified in the recommendation.
111E The Board’s power to recommend orders under section 111D
(1) The Board may recommend to the Lord Chancellor that the Lord Chancellor make an order under section 111D in relation to an approved regulator.
(2) A recommendation must specify the persons to whom the approved regulator should be able to give notices under section 111A(1).
(3) A recommendation may only be made with the consent of the approved regulator.
(4) Before making a recommendation under this section, the Board must publish a draft of the proposed recommendation.
(5) The draft must be accompanied by a notice which states that representations about the proposed recommendation may be made to the Board within a specified period.
(6) Before making the recommendation, the Board must have regard to any representations duly made.”
(3) In section 206 (parliamentary control of orders and regulations), in subsection (4), after paragraph (n) insert—
“(na) section 111D (order to confer information powers on other approved regulators);”.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause would allow the Law Society and any other approved regulators specified by the Lord Chancellor to obtain information or documents for exercising their regulatory functions for purposes relating to the prevention and detection of economic crime.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Thomas Tugendhat: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Disclosure of information in the public interest likely to be relevant to the investigation of economic crime—
‘(1) It is a defence to an action based on the disclosure or publication of information for the defendant to show that—
(a) the disclosure or publication complained of was likely to be relevant to the investigation of an economic crime, and
(b) the defendant reasonably believed that the disclosure or publication complained of was likely to be relevant to the investigation of an economic crime.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), in determining whether the defendant has shown the matters mentioned in subsection (1), the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case.
(3) In determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that the disclosure or publication complained of was likely to be relevant to the investigation of an economic crime, the court must make such allowance for editorial judgement as it considers appropriate.
(4) For the avoidance of doubt, the defence under this section may be relied upon irrespective of whether the statement complained of is a statement of fact or a statement of opinion.”
New clause 2—Economic crime: power to strike out statement of case for abuse of process—
The court may strike out the whole or part of any statement of case which can be reasonably understood as having the purpose of concealing, or preventing disclosure or publication of, any information likely to be relevant to the investigation of an economic crime.”
New clause 3—Home Office review of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa scheme: publication—
Within a day of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish in full the findings of the Home Office review of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa scheme which relate to economic crime.”
New clause 4—Offence of failure to prevent fraud, false accounting or money laundering—
‘(1) A relevant commercial organisation (“C”) is guilty of an offence under this section where—
(a) a person (“A”) associated with C commits a fraud, false accounting or an act of money laundering, or aids and abets a fraud, false accounting or act of money laundering, intending—
(i) to confer a business advantage on C, or
(ii) to confer a benefit on a person to whom A provides services on behalf of C, and
(b) fails to prevent the activity set out in paragraph (a).
(2) C does not commit an offence where C can prove that the conduct detailed in subsection (1)(a) was intended to cause harm to C.
(3) It is a defence for C to prove that, at the relevant time, C had in place procedures that were reasonable in all the circumstances and which were designed to prevent persons associated with C from undertaking the conduct detailed in subsection (1)(a).
(4) For the purposes of this section “relevant commercial organisation” means—
(a) for the offence as it relates to false accounting and fraud, “relevant commercial organisations” are defined as—
(i) a body which is incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom and which carries on a business (whether there or elsewhere),
(ii) any other body corporate (wherever incorporated) which carries on a business, or part of a business, in any part of the United Kingdom,
(iii) a partnership which is formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom and which carries on a business (whether there or elsewhere), or
(iv) any other partnership (wherever formed) which carries on a business, or part of a business, in any part of the United Kingdom, and
(v) for the purposes of this section, a trade or profession is a business;
(b) for the offence as it relates to money laundering, “relevant commercial organisations” are defined as—
(i) credit institutions;
(ii) financial institutions;
(iii) auditors, insolvency practitioners, external accountants and tax advisers;
(iv) independent legal professionals;
(v) trust or company service providers;
(vi) estate agents and letting agents;
(vii) high value dealers;
(viii) casinos;
(ix) art market participants;
(x) cryptoasset exchange providers;
(xi) custodian wallet providers.”
This new clause introduces a new criminal corporate offence for failure to prevent fraud, false accounting and money laundering, by aligning it with other corporate criminal offences.
New clause 5—Identification doctrine—
‘(1) A body corporate commits an offence of fraud, money laundering, false accounting, bribery and tax evasion where the offence is committed with the consent, connivance or neglect of a senior manager.
(2) An individual is a “senior manager” of an entity if the individual—
(a) plays a significant role in—
(i) the making of decisions about how the entity’s relevant activities are to be managed or organised, or
(ii) the managing or organising of the entity’s relevant activities, or
(b) is the Chief Executive or Chief Financial Officer of the body corporate.
(3) A body corporate also commits an offence if, acting within the scope of their authority—
(a) one or more senior managers engage in conduct, whether by act or omission, such that, if it had been the conduct of only one representative, that representative would have been a party to the offence; and
(b) the senior manager who is responsible for the aspect of the organization’s activities that is relevant to the offence — or the senior managers collectively — fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent that offence being committed.”
This new clause reforms the “identification doctrine”, so that a body corporate commits an economic crime offence where the offence is committed with the consent, connivance or neglect of a senior manager or senior managers.
New clause 6—Failure to prevent fraud, false accounting or money laundering: individual liability—
‘(1) A person (“S”) commits an offence if—
(a) at a time when S is a senior manager or corporate officer of a corporate body (“C”), S—
(i) takes, or agrees to the taking of, a decision by or on behalf of the corporate body as to the way in which the business of the corporate body is conducted, and
(ii) fails to take any steps that S could take to prevent such a decision being taken;
(b) at the time of the decision, S is aware of a risk that the implementation of the decision may lead to the commission of an offence of money laundering, fraud, false accounting, bribery or tax evasion; and
(c) the implementation of the decision causes C to commit such an offence.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) an individual is a “senior manager” of a corporate body if the individual plays a significant role in—
(i) the making of decisions about how the entity’s relevant activities are to be managed or organised, or
(ii) the actual managing or organising of the entity’s relevant activities;
(b) “officer”, in relation to a body corporate, means—
(i) a director, manager, associate, secretary or other similar officer, or
(ii) a person purporting to act in any such capacity;
(c) in paragraph (b)(i) “director”, in relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, means a member of the body corporate.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction—
(i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months (or 6 months, if the offence was committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) or a fine, or both;
(ii) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
(iii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine, or both.”
This new clause introduces direct criminal liability for corporate officers who take a decision, or fail to take a decision, that knowingly results in an offence being committed.
New clause 7—Whistleblowing: economic crime—
‘(1) Whistleblowing is defined for the purposes of this section as any disclosure of information suggesting that, in the reasonable opinion of the whistleblower, an economic crime—
(a) has occurred,
(b) is occurring, or
(c) is likely to occur.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, set up an office to receive reports of whistleblowing as defined in subsection (1) to be known as the Office for Whistleblowers.
(3) The Office for Whistleblowers must—
(a) protect whistleblowers from detriment resulting from their whistleblowing,
(b) ensure that disclosures by whistleblowers are investigated, and
(c) escalate information and evidence of wrongdoing outside of its remit to another appropriate authority.
(4) The objectives of the Office for Whistleblowers are—
(a) to encourage and support whistleblowers to make whistleblowing reports,
(b) to provide an independent, confidential and safe environment for making and receiving whistleblowing information,
(c) to provide information and advice on whistleblowing, and
(d) to act on evidence of detriment to the whistleblower in line with guidance set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(5) The Office for Whistleblowers must report annually to Parliament on the exercise of its duties, objectives and functions.”
New clause 21—Civil recovery: costs of proceedings—
After section 313 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 insert—
“313A Costs orders
(1) This section applies to proceedings brought by an enforcement authority under part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 where the property in respect of which the proceedings have been brought has been obtained through economic crime.
(2) The court may not make an order that any costs of proceedings relating to a case to which this section applies (including appeal proceedings) are payable by an enforcement authority to a respondent or a specified responsible officer in respect of the involvement of the respondent or the officer in those proceedings, unless—
(a) the authority acted unreasonably in making or opposing the application to which the proceedings relate, or in supporting or opposing the making of the order to which the proceedings relate, or
(b) the authority acted dishonestly or improperly in the course of the proceedings.”
This new clause extends the cap on adverse costs introduced by the first Economic Crime Act (Transparency and Enforcement) 2022 for Unexplained Wealth Orders, to all civil recovery orders.
New clause 23—Review of measures to prevent proceeds of economic crime entering the UK economy—
Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the report of a review of what further regulatory measures could be taken to prevent the circulation in the UK economy of the proceeds of economic crime controlled by individuals or entities subject to sanctions.”
This new clause creates an obligation for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of further regulatory measures for preventing the circulation in the economy of the proceeds of economic crime controlled by individuals or entities subject to sanctions.
New clause 25—Report into effectiveness of Act in addressing economic crime involving sanctioned individuals—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before Parliament a report of a review into the effectiveness of the measures in this Act in addressing economic crime involving designated persons.
(2) The report must consider the case for further legislation to make provision for the seizing of assets of a designated person where there is evidence that the designated person has been involved in economic crime.
(3) In this section, “designated persons” has the meaning given in section 9 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.”
New clause 27—Compensation for Victims of Economic Crime—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than 90 days from the date on which this Act comes into force, publish and lay before Parliament a strategy for the potential establishment of a fund for the compensation of victims of economic crime.
(2) The strategy may include provisions on the management and disposal of any assets realised by the government, or any body with law enforcement responsibilities in relation to economic crime, under relevant UK legislation.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy on the potential establishment of a fund to provide compensation to victims of economic crime.
New clause 30—Assets of Iranian officials obtained through economic crime—
Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the report of a review of regulatory measures to prevent the circulation in the UK economy of assets of Iranian officials which have been obtained through economic crime.”
New clause 31—Fund for the purposes of tackling economic crime—
In the Companies Act 2006, after Part 29 insert—

Part 29A - Economic Crime

993A Fund for the purposes of tackling economic crime
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a fund for the purposes of tackling economic crime.
(2) The regulations must specify the purposes for which the fund may be used, including funding the activities of law enforcement agencies in tackling economic crime.””
New clause 32—Review of definition of cryptoassets—
Within 18 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the report of a review of the adequacy of the definitions of cryptoassets contained in this Act.”
New clause 33—Economic Crime Committee of Parliament—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a body to be known as the Economic Crime Committee of Parliament (in this section referred to as “the ECC”).
(2) The ECC will consist of nine members who are to be drawn both from the members of the House of Commons and from the members of the House of Lords.
(3) Each member of the ECC is to be appointed by the House of Parliament from which the member is to be drawn.
(4) The ECC will have the power to meet confidentially.
(5) The ECC may examine or otherwise oversee any regulatory, enforcement or supervision agencies involved in work related, but not limited to—
(a) tax avoidance and evasion by corporations;
(b) illicit finance;
(c) anti-money laundering supervision;
(d) tackling fraud;
(e) kleptocracy and corruption; and
(f) whistleblower protection.”
This new clause would oblige the Secretary of State to establish an Economic Crime Committee of parliament to examine and oversee regulatory, enforcement and supervisory action against economic crime.
New clause 39—Duty to report on economic crime resourcing and performance—
‘(1) The Director General of the National Crime Agency must—
(a) prepare a report on the resourcing and staffing of its work to counter economic crime, and its performance tackling economic crime, and
(b) send it to the Secretary of State as soon as practicable after this section comes into force.
(2) The Director General must prepare and send to the Secretary of State further reports on these topics annually.
(3) Each report must include, in particular—
(a) a report of the total annual budget and number of staff allocated to economic crime for each unit within the National Crime Agency,
(b) a report of the number of investigations, arrests, prosecutions and convictions relating to economic crime for each unit within the National Crime Agency, and
(c) a report of other relevant data including, but not limited to, cases per year broken down by both type and outcome; number of restraint or confiscation orders obtained; and value of assets confiscated.
(4) Reporting under subsection (3) must provide a breakdown between domestic economic crime and international economic crime. Reporting on international economic crime under subsections (3)(b) and (3)(c) must provide a breakdown by the income classification of the countries affected.
(5) The Director General must publish every report under this section—
(a) as soon as practicable after they send it to the Secretary of State, and
(b) in such manner as they consider appropriate.”
Section 6 of the Crime and Courts Act 2006 currently places a duty on the Director General of the National Crime Agency to make arrangements for publishing information about the exercise of NCA functions and other matters relating to the NCA, and publish information in accordance with those arrangements. This new clause inserts a new section that places a specific duty on the Director General to prepare an annual report on the NCA’s resourcing and performance relating to economic crime. The section stipulates the minimum information that the Director General must include in the report.
New clause 40—Report into options for corporate liability for economic crime—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must produce a report on corporate criminal liability for economic crime offences.
(2) The report must consider the merits of different models for corporate liability in respect of economic crime, including but not limited to—
(a) the respondeat superior model; and
(b) the failure to prevent model, insofar as it has not already been introduced by the enactment of this Act.
(3) The report must be laid before Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.
(4) In this section—
“the respondeat superior model” means a model for corporate criminal liability in which an entity is guilty of an offence if an employee or agent commits an economic crime offence—
(a) in the course of their employment or agency, or
(b) with an intent to benefit that entity;
“the failure to prevent model” means a model for corporate criminal liability in which an entity is guilty of an offence if a person associated with that entity commits an economic crime offence, intending—
(a) to confer a business advantage on that entity, or
(b) to confer a benefit on a person or other entity to whom the associated person provides services on behalf of the entity with which it is associated, except that the entity shall not be liable where the conduct was intended to cause harm to that entity,
unless the entity can prove that it had in place such prevention procedures as were reasonable in the circumstances, or that it was reasonable not to have any such procedures in place;
a person is “associated with” an entity if they are a person who performs services for or on behalf of that entity, including in, but not limited to, the capacity of an employee, agent or subsidiary.”
Government amendments 44 to 49, 57 and 58 to 100.

Thomas Tugendhat: It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it is the first time I have had the privilege of speaking under your chairmanship on these matters. It is also a pleasure to see so many of the usual faces on this matter. Many of us have gone over these questions in Committee and, actually, in the many years beforehand in various different ways, so it is an enormous privilege to be here. It is particularly a privilege to be speaking after the Minister my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) did such a brilliant job yesterday. I am only picking up where he left off, so I am afraid the second act will not be nearly as compelling as the  first.
All those who participated in the Bill Committee gave enormous insights into various different perceptions of how we should be thinking about economic crime and corporate transparency. We have had many interesting debates, and I thank enormously those who have taken part in the various different ways. The fact that we have a two-day debate on Report speaks pretty clearly about the significant size and complexity of this Bill.
Yesterday, we debated parts 1 to 3, which cover Companies House reform and corporate transparency. Today, we turn our attention to parts 4 to 6. The clauses in part 4 create new powers that allow law enforcement to more quickly and easily seize and recover cryptoassets. The creation of the civil forfeiture power for cryptoassets will mitigate the risk posed by those who cannot be  criminally prosecuted, but who use their funds to further criminality or for terrorist purposes. This did not prove to be particularly contentious in Committee.
In part 5 of the Bill, we are making it easier for businesses to share information more effectively with each other and with law enforcement to prevent and detect economic crime. We are also creating new exemptions to reduce unnecessary reporting by businesses carrying out transactions on behalf of their customers. We are also giving frontline legal services regulators enhanced enforcement powers to support them as they uphold the economic crime agenda within their regulated community.
I will briefly summarise the amendments we have tabled relating to parts 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill. Many of them address the debate that took place in Committee and will ensure that the Bill works as intended. I should acknowledge that the amendments are perhaps slightly greater in number than we would have liked. The vast majority—amendments 51 and 57 to 100—are minor technical or consequential amendments to ensure that the detail of the cryptoasset measures will work effectively and can be used as soon as possible. That reflects the technical detail of the subject area and the need to make the changes work for each of the jurisdictions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland that are covered by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
I now turn to the more substantive Government amendments. New clause 14 allows the Solicitors Regulation Authority to proactively request information from its regulated community for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the economic crime regime. It will enable the SRA to monitor and detect breaches of the rules and legislation related to economic crime, including offences related to money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions.
Government amendments 44 to 47 to clauses 171 and 172 concern information orders. They seek to clarify the cases in which the information order power can be used and to provide clarity to operational partners about how they should be used. They will ensure that the power can be used only for the criminal intelligence functions of the National Crime Agency, and that when assessing a request for information from a foreign intelligence unit, the NCA must be satisfied that the information would support the FIU’s intelligence function.

Bob Seely: On the SRA, will the Bill address the strategic lawsuits against public participation that we have been discussing for the last couple of days, or does it purely concern money laundering and other offences unrelated to SLAPPs?

Thomas Tugendhat: The Bill is concerned only with economic crime and corporate transparency, and the regulations will cover only that. Many Ministers, including the Lord Chancellor, have spoken about SLAPPs—I will touch on them later—but the reality is that they require a separate jurisdiction and a separate Bill.
Government amendments 48 and 49 concern information sharing. In Committee, Opposition Members rightly pointed out that our proposed definition of large accountancy firms did not include insolvency practitioners, auditors and tax advisers. I thank them for that. These amendments will rectify that omission by expanding the scope of the indirect information sharing clauses to include those sectors.
In addition to the Government amendments, several other amendments on a broad range of topics will be debated today. As in Committee, I look forward to what I anticipate will be a lively but extremely well-considered debate. The contributions of all hon. Members who participated in earlier debates have helped to shape the Bill into an effective tool to tackle illicit finance and ensure that the UK is a great place to do legitimate business.
I know that there are places where hon. Members would like the Bill to go further and do more. Indeed, I am as keen as many of them to solve some of the outstanding problems that we all wish to address, but we need to ensure that those ambitions are delivered in the most effective way and that we use the appropriate legislative vehicles to ensure that they have the desired outcome. Limiting the scope to just economic crime can, in several cases, create more problems than it solves, and I assure right hon. and hon. Members that I have strenuously tested what can be effectively delivered within the scope of the Bill.

Margaret Hodge: Will the Minister expand on that interesting point? How would any of the amendments on SLAPPs, a duty to prevent or seizing assets limit what could be done in future?

Thomas Tugendhat: The question is at what stage do we bring a Bill forward—do we wait for it to be perfect or do we bring forward what we can get at a certain point? The right hon. Lady raises some interesting points. She knows my views on SLAPPS; indeed, in a former incarnation, I may have expressed them extremely clearly. She knows that we share views on asset seizures too. I should point out, however, that no common law jurisdiction has successfully solved the question of asset seizures, although many of us have tried and, indeed, some of us are in conversation with others to try to work out ways of doing it—forfeiture and seizure are not quite the same thing.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Thomas Tugendhat: I will give way; I should have known that I was lining that up.

Jonathan Djanogly: Yes, because my right hon. Friend touched on asset seizures and tempted me. Of course, Canada has enacted an Act of Parliament that provides for freezing orders to be translated into seizing orders at the request of the Attorney General of Canada.

Thomas Tugendhat: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but he is also no doubt aware that there is much discussion in the Canadian legal community about whether those orders will be challenged in different ways and how exactly they will work. There is still a serious debate about the nature of translating from forfeiture to seizure.

Jonathan Djanogly: My right hon. Friend is generous in giving way again. All this law is new: our unexplained wealth orders were new, and they have been questioned in the courts, so that is not the question. The question is whether we have the guts to stand up and move on this issue, as the whole western world wants to see.

Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Thomas Tugendhat: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I note that some hon. Members cheering would also cheer the provisions of the European convention on human rights that guarantee the right to private property and many of the areas that cause the difficulties that the UK has and Canada does not.
I do not deny that there is an enormous question for debate here and that many hon. Members would like to move quickly to seizure on many areas, but sadly, that may take a bit longer. One thing on which we all agree is that the UK’s place as a rule-of-law jurisdiction and as a home for justice, not just to ourselves but to many others around the world, is essential to our prosperity and to liberties around the world. It is therefore important to ensure that we correctly transfer from forfeiture to seizure, and recognise the rights and limits that we should respect.

Liam Byrne: I salute the Minister’s leadership on much of this agenda when he was a brilliant Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He will not, however, want to go down in history as the Minister for mañana. In his responses to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), he has said that the timing is not right and we must wait for future Bills. Can he put our minds at rest and give us a sense of when we might expect a Bill to come forward to address the concerns of the hon. Member for Huntingdon?

Thomas Tugendhat: The right hon. Gentleman is extremely kind about my former work and, typically, slightly less so about my current employ. He can be assured that, no doubt, it will be temporary, as it is for all occupants.
That matter has seized my attention and has been of some interest to me in further discussions in different areas. I will not put a time on it, because it is not my ministerial responsibility; the right hon. Gentleman will know from his time in Government that talking across other Ministers’ briefs does not always help to advance the case. I assure him, however, that it has come up frequently in conversation with an intent to bring something forward. As I said, the Lord Chancellor has spoken about it to highlight that it is an area where various elements of change are necessary, so I look forward to hearing the proposals as they come forward. I certainly do not think that the matter can wait. We have sadly seen SLAPPs used against such inspiring examples as Eliot Higgins and Catherine Belton, who have stood up for justice in this country and around the world.

Bob Seely: Will the Minister give way?

Thomas Tugendhat: I will not, because I am going to close.
Despite all the areas that we could have gone into, and would like to go into at a different time, the Bill is closely focused on economic crime and corporate transparency for the purpose of passing a series of measures that are essential to ensure that we keep our country safe and our economic jurisdictions clean.

Stephen Kinnock: We on the Opposition Benches have been clear that the Bill is long overdue. It has been painful to witness London becoming the world’s laundromat for dirty money with the National Crime Agency calculating that £100 billion of illicit finance  flows through the UK every single year. Add to that the Government’s abject failure to properly scrutinise the issuing of golden visas to Russian oligarchs—seven now-sanctioned Russians were awarded such visas even after the invasion of Crimea in 2014—and we see a pattern emerging of Ministers failing to treat economic crime with the seriousness it deserves.
This legislation, which is finally wending its way towards the statute book five years after it was promised—and, let us face it, was only brought forward in response to Putin’s invasion—is a step in the right direction that we on these Benches support. However, it still falls short in a number of areas, as I will cover in my remarks.

Layla Moran: On golden visas, I think the hon. Member will agree that the response we have had so far is unpalatable. I look forward to speaking to new clause 3, which I hope we will be able to divide on later, so that we can get to the bottom of that.
Does the hon. Member agree that the whole point of sanctions is that they are actually adhered to and that the Government do not in any way allow them and their effect to be diluted? There is the case of current Conservative party treasurer Mohamed Mansour, who owns a company called Unatrac that sells Caterpillar equipment to Russia in contravention, it would seem, of one of the sanctions we have set. Is he aware of that case, and what would he urge the Government to do about it?

Stephen Kinnock: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The new clause on golden visas that she mentioned is spot-on, and we are very happy to support it. I am afraid there are a number of examples of the role Russian money is playing in the Conservative party, including the one she mentioned. I do think that that has acted as a constraint on the kind of action the Government could and should have been taking for many years now, and I really hope Ministers will start to wake up to that reality.
The public need to know that the Government and parliamentarians are taking this issue very seriously indeed, and I am proud of the way that Labour Front Benchers—including my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who is alongside me on the Front Bench—and others have sought to work constructively with the Government to improve this legislation. Members of the Bill Committee considered the Government’s proposals in great detail during 19 sittings, covering hundreds of pages of legislation and amendments. Both the quality and the tone of the debates were of the highest standard, reflecting not just the widespread interest in these issues across the House, but the depth of knowledge and expertise in a wide range of areas. In that regard, I must pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). The Committee benefited greatly from their thoughtful and well-informed contributions, which I have no doubt will be shared more widely in this debate.
It is therefore profoundly disappointing that, in Committee, there was little in the way of movement from the Government, even in areas where they struggled to find fault with our amendments and new clauses. While I welcome the constructive tone that both Ministers  brought to our debates in Committee, the disappointing fact remains that every single effort by Opposition parties to strengthen the Bill met with resistance from Ministers, and every Opposition amendment pressed to a vote was defeated. As a result, the Committee stage amounted to little more than a litany of missed opportunities, forcing us to return to these arguments once again in this debate, and no doubt we will have to do so during the Bill’s remaining stages.
That point is illustrated by the first amendment on today’s selection list, Government new clause 14 on information-sharing powers. The new clause seeks to expand access to information relevant to economic crime enforcement efforts, but focuses only on the Law Society and
“any other approved regulators specified by the Lord Chancellor”.
Put simply, local authorities need these powers, too. Tackling economic crime is a huge challenge for councils due to the lack of licence they have to act on their own intelligence about crime in their local areas.
Councils want to play their part in cracking down on illicit wealth as it manifests itself in their areas. For instance, I have heard at first hand from Westminster City Council how it is battling a growing number of shop fronts—so-called American candy stores—on Oxford Street in particular, that are being used to channel illicit finance, but the process for taking meaningful action against these illegal practices is simply too slow, and as a result it is a gift to the criminals. Disappointingly, following opposition from Ministers to amendments we tabled in Committee that sought to expand powers for local authorities to enforce economic crime laws, there are still no specific provisions to enhance the ability of councils to act.
Moving on to the many important amendments tabled by Front and Back Benchers on both sides of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill again raises the issue of strategic lawsuits against public participation—or, as they are commonly known, SLAPPs. This has, of course, been a deeply troubling issue for a very long time. SLAPPs are defined as
“a recognisable and pernicious form of litigation which seeks to silence, intimidate, and harass opponents”,
and they
“are designed to silence criticism and investigation conducted in the public interest.”
Those are not my words, but the Government’s own definition. Others refer to this practice as lawfare.
We have in the past seen this practice used by the lawyers of Russian oligarchs against investigative journalists seeking to uncover corruption, but we now know that these tactics have also been used by not one, but two Conservative party chairmen in recent years. In March 2019, I wrote to the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) when he was chair of the Conservative party with my concerns regarding the origins of a £1.8 million donation from Ehud Sheleg, who was then the treasurer of the Conservative party, to the Conservative party. I was sent a reply by the right hon. Member threatening to sue me for libel. He might even have got away with it had one of Mr Sheleg’s donations not later been flagged by Barclays bank to the National Crime Agency because, in its view, it originated not from Mr Sheleg’s bank account, but from the bank account of his father-in-law, a former pro-Putin Russian politician. That is lawfare in action.
But there is more—this time from representatives of the current Conservative chair. Members may have heard his name, as he has been in the news quite a bit recently. In July 2022, Dan Neidle, a former head of tax at Clifford Chance who now runs Tax Policy Associates, accused the then Chancellor of the Exchequer of providing unsatisfactory answers about his tax affairs. What happened next? Mr Neidle received a letter from the law firm Osborne Clarke, representing the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), demanding that he withdraw his claims. That was a truly audacious approach and move, one might say, given what we now know about the former Chancellor’s tax returns. The bottom line is that we have a Government who claim to be committed to tackling SLAPPs, while Ministers are actively using the practice to their own benefit. It is little wonder that legislative progress has been somewhat sluggish, and that the speed of action on the part of the Government does not reflect the urgency and gravity of the issue.
New clauses 1 and 2, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, would provide a much-needed shot in the arm to efforts to resolve the endemic use of SLAPPs in British courtrooms. New clause 21, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking with cross-party support, addresses the related issue of costs orders, which clearly form part of the legal architecture that is all too easily exploited by criminals to exert a chilling effect on critics and journalists reporting in the public interest. New clause 7, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), would incorporate much-needed protections for whistleblowers into the Bill. All of those Back-Bench amendments have the wholehearted 100% support of the Opposition.
After months of consultation on SLAPPs, the Ministry of Justice published a response, which confirmed that
“the Government intends to pursue legislative reform at the earliest opportunity.”
That was back in July last year. If there has been any meaningful progress since that time, it has not been apparent to me, to my right hon. and hon. Friends or to any other Members who have signed these new clauses, so I ask the Minister: how much longer will it take for the Government to act decisively on this issue?
In new clause 3, as has been mentioned, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) raises the important issue of the tier 1 investor—or golden visa—scheme, which was closed down last year amid much ignominy arising from its extensive use by Russian oligarchs and other kleptocrats. In April last year, I wrote to the then Home Secretary to call for the publication of the Government’s internal review of the scheme without delay. In that letter I said:
“It is simply not enough that the scheme is now closed and a small number of oligarchs sanctioned; politicians and the public alike must be able to understand the findings of the report and learn the lessons.”
Here we are more than nine months later, and that argument still holds true. It is deeply regrettable that the Home Secretary is refusing to publish the report in full.
New clauses 4, 5 and 6 on corporate criminal liability point to another of the Government’s missed opportunities. There is a well-established and proud tradition of groundbreaking UK law on holding company executives to account for misdeeds committed in their names, or in the names of corporations they are responsible for  running. A precedent was set by the Bribery Act 2010, which was passed by the last Labour Government. The Government built on that example in the Criminal Finances Act 2017 by introducing new corporate criminal offences related to failures to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion both in the UK and overseas. Extending those “failure to prevent” offences to a wider range of economic crimes is the logical and natural next step. New clause 40 provides a starting point for reforming the law in that area, and would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, setting out the various options by which a new offence might be introduced. New clauses 4 to 6 would go further still, by taking forward specific proposals within the Bill. The Opposition are more than happy to support those measures, and I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for their leadership on this important issue.
Even as we support these reforms, it is important to remind ourselves that new laws will not necessarily be game changers in themselves. These laws, like any others, will be only as useful as the willingness and ability of this or any future Government to enforce them. Legislation without implementation is not worth the paper it is written on—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is nodding, because we heard that from him frequently in Committee.

John Penrose: I thank the shadow Minister for giving way—I have an enormous amount of time for an awful lot of what he does and says. I want to challenge him a little on whether these potential changes about the duty to prevent might be more effective and game changing than he is describing, because not only should they reduce the burden of criminality, which is reducing our economic performance and our productivity as a nation, but they could be quite deregulatory. They sweep away a raft of largely ineffective and deeply costly measures, and replace them with something that is simpler and easier to comply with, but more effective at the same time.

Stephen Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge on this issue, and he is right that we need a streamlined, simple approach that clearly places responsibility and liability where they need to be. That is smart regulation. Over-complicating regulation is precisely where the lawyers, fixers and those who so often facilitate this illicit activity find their niche, and how they exploit it is their leverage. Let us make this a game-changing Bill, along the lines that he suggests, and let us hope that the Government’s scale of ambition matches his and that of other hon. Members across the Chamber.
As far as the record of this Government goes, the evidence is hardly encouraging, with just 168 prosecutions and five convictions brought against companies by the Serious Fraud Office between 2016 and 2021, and increasing reliance on US-style deferred prosecution agreements that fall well short of providing full accountability for corporate criminal behaviour. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington  South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who has set out detailed plans to reverse the SFO’s loss of senior staff and expertise, transform the agency’s approach to prosecutions, and allow more of the proceeds of successful cases to be retained by the SFO, as part of a renewed crackdown on corporate malfeasance under the next Labour Government. Labour’s blueprint is there, and Labour Members would be delighted to see the Government adopt it when addressing this issue.
Other new clauses tabled by Back-Bench Members address additional areas that the Government could and should address, but that unfortunately they have not addressed in the Bill. New clause 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) is one example. Its call for a review of the need for further regulations
“to prevent the circulation in the UK economy of the proceeds of economic crime controlled by individuals or entities subject to sanctions”
is welcome, as is new clause 25, tabled by the right hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). If I were to raise any slight criticism, it would be that the new clauses fall a little short of what is needed, but Labour supports them nevertheless. Specifically, both new clauses fail to mention the enormous and central role that is played not just by the UK, but by individual Crown dependencies and overseas territories in enabling—and all too often actively facilitating—global flows of illicit finance, and the ill-gotten assets of kleptocrats and crooks.
That issue was addressed in yesterday’s debate by the Opposition in new clause 26 on beneficial ownership registries. The fact that we are still dealing with local administrations in overseas territories that are dragging their feet on the introduction of these registers, while the Government look on in apparent admiration of their supposedly sincere efforts, is deeply frustrating. Labour Members will keep pressing the Government to take the action that we all know is necessary and long overdue.
The other point worth making about reporting requirements of the kind envisaged by new clauses 23, 25, 30, 32, and 39 is that they sometimes amount to asking Ministers to mark their own homework. We should not have to rely on the willingness of future Ministers and Secretaries of State to provide an impartial, balanced view of their own record. For that reason, the Opposition’s new clause 33 calls for the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee on economic crime. The Intelligence and Security Committee provides a useful model, with its special powers to review sensitive or otherwise confidential material, and that is worth the serious consideration of Ministers.
Perhaps the most gaping hole in the Bill, at least in its current form, is the total omission of any measures to provide support and redress for victims of economic crime. To say that that is a missed opportunity understates the issue. Given the scale on which such measures are needed, and the overwhelming weight of evidence about the need for new measures, that gap in the Bill is baffling. The Opposition’s new clause 27 represents the first of many steps that the Government ought to take as a matter of urgency to fill those gaps. It calls for a strategy to be published, setting out a range of specific policies to improve access to justice for victims of economic criminals, both in the UK and internationally.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making such a brilliant speech. Among the greatest victims of economic crime right now are the people of Ukraine. One virtue of his own proposal and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) is that they propose a shift not just to freezing assets, but to seizing assets and recycling them into the reconstruction of Ukraine. Surely we should legislate for that work now and crack on with it forthwith.

Stephen Kinnock: As always, I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend’s views on the matter. That cannot be beyond the wit of this place or the Government. I know there are legal complications around property and international law, but those are not insuperable. We cannot allow them to be insuperable because, with every day that passes, the people of Ukraine are suffering, and the barbaric acts of Vladimir Putin and his regime are not being held to account in a way that would contribute to the massive reconstruction effort that will be required for Ukraine. It is absolutely right that the person guilty of the crime should pay for the crime and that has to be the fundamental basis of our approach. We need urgency on this in the G20, the G7, and the United Nations. We need Ministers to get a grip of this issue so that we can do justice and deliver for the people of Ukraine, which we must do with great urgency.

Kevin Hollinrake: New clause 27 is interesting. It is about setting up a fund for compensation of victims of economic crime. We have heard estimates that economic crime costs UK citizens £200 billion to £300 billion a year. How much will this cost and who will pay for it?

Stephen Kinnock: The Minister tempts me to write Labour’s manifesto right here at the Dispatch Box. It is an issue of principle: how will we ensure that victims of economic crime are compensated? Clearly, we cannot finalise in the Chamber today the quantum of that amount, but we did raise that in Committee and are open to discussing it with the Government. We hope that they will be open to having that discussion in the fullness of time.

Kevin Hollinrake: Will the hon. Member confirm that he is expecting the taxpayer to contribute to the fund? Is that what the new clause would effectively lead to?

Stephen Kinnock: No. This is based on a fund that is generated through fines and through accountability for those committing the crimes. It is along the lines of what I said about Ukraine: the people who commit the crime, rather than the victims, should be paying for the crime. How will we address that question now? If the Government think that the current system is absolutely fine and that there is justice and equity in the system, the Minister should come to the Dispatch Box and say that. However, if he thinks that there is a clear, principled and moral argument in favour of ensuring that the people who commit a crime should be made to pay for it, and that that should contribute to the compensation, we can have that conversation.

Liam Byrne: Is my hon. Friend scandalised as I am that at the moment only 40% of fines from economic criminals are recycled back into the business of tackling economic crime, whereas in the United States it is 100%?

Stephen Kinnock: That is precisely the point. There is an opportunity to generate revenue that could be deployed to address the causes of the problem. It is a win-win. We have criminals. We need to crack down on those criminals. We need to ensure that the agencies are given the resources to do that. It is the criminals who should be paying for that process. That seems logical to me.

Margaret Hodge: Further to that point, does my hon. Friend agree, and I hope that the Government agree, that if they were more assertive in pursuing the people who enable economic crime and those who commit economic crime, more fines could be generated, which they could ringfence for a fund to be used in part to compensate victims of crime? It need not be a burden on the taxpayer and it could be a just way of ensuring that the victims of economic crime do not suffer inappropriately.

Stephen Kinnock: Again, my right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We need a war chest and that should be built up on the basis of moneys paid by criminals. That war chest should also be looked at and used, where possible, to support the compensation of innocent victims of economic crime. The new clause is a two-pronged attack on the issue. The opportunity is there because the better we get at going after these criminals, the more we will have coming into the war chest.

Barry Sheerman: I am convinced by my hon. Friend’s argument, but one thing worries me. Having the resources would be good, but having the determination to deliver on the policy is more important. I have had a long-running campaign over the years to improve the efficacy of the Serious Fraud Office. We need a fundamental change in our attitude to how we deliver these policies.

Stephen Kinnock: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I mentioned earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury has set out a clear and detailed blueprint for how we need to boost the institutional capacity, human resources capacity, financial capacity and firepower of the SFO. The blueprint is right there. I very much hope that the Government will look at it and perhaps even adopt it. Of course, if they do not, we will soon have a Labour Government who will.
The Opposition’s new clauses on victims intend to  go much further than victims of economic crime in the UK alone. It is our hope—in government, it will be  our intention—to work with our allies and partners internationally to provide robust mechanisms for the seizure of proceeds of corruption, kleptocracy and other crimes under international law, and to use such assets to provide funds for the reconstruction and other forms of financial redress to victims—in Ukraine, for instance—of the criminal acts of dictators such as Vladimir Putin.
For months, we have had nothing but warm words from the Government on such proposals. We know that there have been international discussions, including with our G7 partners and our allies in Ukraine, but we need more than warm words and vague promises of jam tomorrow. While Ministers stall on this issue, we are increasingly at risk of being left behind by our allies in the US, Canada and elsewhere, who are already taking the actions that we want to see in the UK. New clause 27  would therefore direct the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for using the proceeds of crime to compensate victims, and to do so within 90 days of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
We welcome the Bill, but it is a great shame that the Government are failing to take more substantive action in the crucial areas that I mentioned. The Bill is a step in the right direction, but, as it stands, it lacks ambition and is therefore a missed opportunity. I hope that Conservative Members will support our amendments today, so that we can finally begin to clean up our country’s reputation as the go-to destination for dictators, oligarchs, kleptocrats and gangsters, and for their dirty money.

Robert Buckland: I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This issue has been a concern of mine not just for months but for many years. Anybody who has even a passing acquaintance with the issue at hand will know that its history is somewhat tortuous. A series of options were set out comprehensively in a Law Commission report published in June last year, which I commend to hon. Members. However, there is much that predates that. Indeed, much that has happened in the last few months in this place—in both Houses—reinforces the thrust of the argument that I seek to advance by way of new clauses 4 to 6, which stand in my name and those of many other right hon. and hon. Members, from all parties in the House, to whom I am extremely grateful.
In 2015, my party’s manifesto rightly committed the Government to make it illegal for companies to fail to put in place measures to prevent economic crime. It would be unfair to say that nothing happened. We had the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which created a new offence of failing to prevent tax evasion. That was a development on the failing to prevent bribery offence contrary to section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010, which opened the door to the development of the principle across a range of criminality in this space.
Subsequent to that, the Ministry of Justice launched a call for evidence in early 2017 on corporate liability reform for economic crime. However, it is right to say that progress on that was exceedingly slow. It was not until November 2020, when I was serving as Secretary of State, that it was agreed across Government that the Law Commission would be given the task of examining the issue and producing a report. It was right to acknowledge at that stage that there were a number of potential models that could be deployed here, and it was important for an independent body such as the Law Commission to look at different jurisdictions, as of course it did. It looked in particular at the United States, Canada and Australia: common law jurisdictions that have long been wrestling with the same challenges that we face. To differing effect, they have brought in and deployed their own particular regimes. More on that slightly later.
What is clear is that there is very much consensus in this place on the need for reform of corporate criminal liability. The Treasury Committee’s report of February last year urged the Government
“to act quickly in bringing forward any legislation flowing from the Law Commission’s review.”
In June, the Foreign Affairs Committee talked about
“reform of outdated and ineffective corporate criminal liability laws”,
and, in October, the Justice Committee spoke in similar terms. Finally, a report from the House of Lords Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee in November said:
“Reform of corporate criminal liability will be essential in order to maximise the impact of the Fraud Act and other legal tools going forward…to hold corporates across all sectors to account and to inspire behaviour change.”
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for his kind words about me, and I have read new clause 40. I say gently to the Labour party that we do not need six months for a further discussion of this issue. We have a wealth of documentation, which is spread around me on the Bench, including the Law Commission report—I have it here because I believe in primary sources and I am trying to be faithful to it—which comes to the view that the Government should pursue options to create further offences of failing to prevent. Page 119 states:
“any decision to introduce new ‘failure to prevent’ offences needs to be considered alongside the issue of retention or reform of the identification doctrine.”
That relates to new clause 5, which I will speak to shortly. The report goes on to say:
“If the identification doctrine is retained as at present, the case for new failure to prevent offences, is inevitably more compelling. We therefore consider that ‘failure to prevent’ offences are an option for reform, but note that the evaluation of this option must take place alongside the evaluation of the options for reforming the identification doctrine.”
I will now direct my remarks to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security. The Government were given that challenge back in June, and I strongly submit that it is vital that they rise to it and deal with the identification doctrine in the Bill. That could deal not just with the offences I mentioned in my proposal, which I have been very specific about, but has wider ramifications for other aspects of criminal liability. It is highly germane to new offences under the online harms Bill that is going through Parliament at the moment.
I have not sought to be overly ambitious in my proposal. I have confined it to offences that can be described under the genus of economic crime. I have tried not to use such terms in legislation, because I readily accept, as the Law Commission said, that the definition of economic crime is somewhat broad—hazy, perhaps—and does not descend to the detail of existing criminal offences, be they offences under the Fraud Act 2006; the offence of false accounting, which is a well-known offence under the Theft Act 1968; or the offence of money laundering, introduced by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I have therefore resisted the temptation to be too vague.
I commend the Government’s economic crime action plan of 2021, which I think I helped sign off. Rightly, the action plan describes economic crime as a
“broad category of activity involving money, finance or assets, the purpose of which is to unlawfully obtain a profit or advantage for the perpetrator or cause loss to others.”
It is important that we put this in context and look at what the action plan is saying. It goes on:
“This poses a threat to the UK’s economy and its institutions and causes serious harm to society and individuals.”
I strongly agree. There is no such thing in this sphere as a victimless crime. We are all the victims of this behaviour, whether we are investors, consumers or taxpayers. Everybody is diminished as a result of such behaviour. It damages and undermines the reputation of our country.

Liam Byrne: The right hon. and learned Member is making a brilliant speech, and the proposals he is stewarding are incredibly important. Did he hear the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation’s evidence to the Bill Committee, when he said very clearly that economic crime is a national security issue? That is exactly the argument the Minister for Security made when he was Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee—[Interruption.] I am told he still makes that argument today. That underlines why the right hon. and learned Member’s proposals are so important, not least because we have become the country of choice for corporate structures set up to launder billions of illegal money.

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, was absolutely right. Indeed, his evidence echoed the Government’s own statement in pursuance of the action plan. The action plan says that it covers criminal activity that
“poses a risk to the UK’s prosperity, national security and reputation.”
That is the point. The policy direction the Government have adopted in recent legislation—most notably in legislation to protect industry from takeovers from parts of the world that we regard as a potential threat to this country—increasingly includes economic security as part of the wider national security agenda, and that is absolutely right.
This debate is happening in the context of a world where the old order is changing and giving way to forces that we cannot control and that we should rightly be suspicious about. Therefore, although we want a vigorous, lively, free market economy in this country, we need to be ever more vigilant about ensuring that its boundaries are policed effectively. I will say more about the prosecution of these offences, because it is, shall we say, a vexed question, and there are right hon. and hon. Members here who have direct experience from their work of the evidential challenges that prosecutors face day in, day out.
I do not want the Government to adopt new criminal offences only to find that their use becomes sporadic or ineffective. However, the offences I propose help to further drive a culture of compliance and lawfulness where corporates behave responsibly. There are examples of previous legislation that we can point to that have driven that culture forward positively. I think of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which the Under-Secretary of State has used as an example, and he was absolutely right to do so. As a result of the passage of that legislation, we saw a dramatic drop in the number of industrial accidents. Why? Because employers were enjoined to take the issue damn seriously. If they did not, there would be liability at the end of it.

Jonathan Djanogly: Has my right hon. and learned Friend also considered the Bribery Act, where a similar set of procedures was forced on corporates, with dramatic results?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, he was a Minister in the Ministry of Justice when the Bribery Act was brought into force at the end of the 2005 Parliament, and he has direct experience of this issue. He is absolutely right that the Bribery Act has been of huge value. In fact, under the regime of deferred prosecution agreements that the Government brought in in the early part of the last decade, of the 11 DPAs that have been made by the Serious Fraud Office with corporates, nine were for “failure to prevent offences”—failure to prevent bribery—and just three were for the offence of fraud. That accounts for 90% of the £1.7 billion in revenue that the SFO has brought in through DPAs. It is clear that that has been an important step change in the way we deal with wrongdoing or indeed the threat of wrongdoing.
For people who think this is some sort of academic exercise, I draw their attention to the LIBOR scandal and the forex rate rigging scenario. There was no bringing to account of anyone involved—there was impunity. That is not good for the rule of law or the economic wellbeing of this country.If we want people to invest in the United Kingdom—we do and we have excelled in direct foreign investment over generations—then they need to have the confidence that if there is a problem, there is redress of grievance, accountability and a way of recouping the loss or making sure their investment is safe. That is what I believe the new clauses go to.
We have been careful in the test we wish to apply to the “failure to prevent” offences that form the subject of new clauses 4 and 6. It was tempting to follow the recommendation in the report by the House of Lords’ Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee, chaired by my noble Friend Baroness Morgan of Cotes, to apply the wider test contained within the Criminal Finances Act 2017 relating to failing to prevent tax evasion. That would not require an intention by the corporate or the individual to confer a benefit on the company or a benefit on a person to whom the suspect—the defendant— is providing services on behalf of the company. I have sought not to go that far, but to replicate the Bribery Act test, which is the intention to confer a benefit. It is important that when we seek to draft legislation, we are as mindful as possible of not widening it to an extent that could in many ways create further unfairness. We have an obligation to ensure that balance is maintained.
I have set out three separate offences in the provisions: fraud, money laundering and false accounting. I think fraud and false accounting are probably self-explanatory, but the Government might have a bit of a question about money laundering. They might be thinking about the 2017 money laundering regulations, and regulation 92 in particular, where there is already a corporate offence where, with the consent or connivance of an officer of the company, an offence is committed or an offence is attributable to neglect on their part. What I would say gently to the Minister is that I do not think that cuts it. It still leaves significant evidential and prosecutorial challenges. The Financial Conduct Authority has, I think, used it vanishingly rarely. Therefore, I urge him very strongly to look carefully—I hope he will accept  the thrust of my argument, even if he cannot accept the detail of my new clauses today—at bringing forward provision that covers money laundering as well as fraud. That would be my strong exhortation to him today.

Margaret Hodge: I want to add to the excellent speech that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making and to thank him for it. In the Barclays case, there was an attempt to prosecute both Barclays bank and individual directors of Barclays bank. There was an unsuccessful appeal against Mr Justice Jay’s decision, in which the SFO argued that the dual rulings would allow directors to “insulate themselves from liability” and make such alleged offences “impossible to prosecute”. Later, Ms Osofsky, who runs the SFO, said she felt herself completely hamstrung by the directing mind principle. She told parliamentarians in evidence that
“I can go after main street but I can’t go after Wall Street.”
In other words, she could prosecute small companies, but not corporates with layers of control.

Robert Buckland: The right hon. Lady leads me to the thrust of my argument on new clause 5, which is the identification doctrine itself. She deals with the precise point of the doctrine. In the Barclays case, Mr Justice Jay at first instance was widely seen as having defined it by a narrow interpretation—I do not criticise the learned trial judge, but many people saw it that way—but the decision was upheld on appeal. With a real-life set of facts, a trial judge made a ruling that had quite important consequences for the law.
But this issue is not new. The principle was set out in the Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v. Nattrass case 50 years ago. The directing mind and will principle, which is how it was described in the Tesco case, now needs to be revisited. That is why I have sought, in new clause 5, to look carefully at options 2A and 2B in the Law Commission report. In particular, in the wording of the new clause we have sought to look at other types of liability, most notably the 2007 corporate manslaughter provisions, to ensure that we are faithfully replicating what is already an established principle in statute. I do not seek, through new clause 5, to suggest that there need be a choice for the Government, so that if the Government reform the identification principle the need for “failure to prevent” offences falls away. The two should go hand in hand. Perhaps I depart slightly there from where the Law Commission placed its emphasis in its report.
As the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) says, it is a pretty rum situation when the public prosecutorial authorities of England and Wales are telling us repeatedly that there is a problem with the identification doctrine. Indeed, as she said the current director of the SFO put it in very eloquent American terms. Sir David Green, the former director of the SFO, has said on many occasions that, particularly given the sometimes byzantine structures of very large corporates, he views the concept of directing mind and will as somewhat confusing and very difficult to understand, let alone to present to a jury. I therefore think that the time is now for reform of that identification principle.
There is some concern that a change in the identification doctrine in criminal law could potentially go on to have effects across the piece and create some contradictions  with civil law itself. The Law Commission addressed that point. It took that view that changing the basis of criminal liability in those terms would not have extensive consequences for civil law. I will set out why it said that, because it is important and no doubt Government officials will be giving it some consideration.

John Penrose: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on making a powerful speech in favour of his new clauses, several of which I have signed. Before he moves on, may I press him on the point about this being a slightly rum affair? I think that was the phrase he just used. It is rum because we have two options set out by the Law Commission—as well as many other analyses—neither of which are being taken into the Bill. There are two good options, and they are being completely ignored. Also, at least one of the two Ministers on the Front Bench has repeatedly—and rightly, in my view and that of many other people—been a dedicated advocate of precisely the ideas my right hon. and learned Friend is putting forward in his new clauses, yet they are still not in the Bill. How much more rum can it get?

Robert Buckland: I was going to spare the blushes of the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), but my hon. Friend has said it for me, and he is right. They know that what I am saying does not just have force, but that they agree with it. That will no doubt carry great weight—

Thomas Tugendhat: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Robert Buckland: Of course.

Thomas Tugendhat: What I am enormously enjoying in this Session is the way in which Bills are being picked up and put down by different Ministers. When they are on the Front Bench, they do one thing; when they are on the Back Benches, they say another—sadly, that is the nature of our current political system. It is taking a little while, I admit, for many of us to realise quite how long it can take to get things through in government. Those who have been in government for many years are sharing their knowledge very generously.

Robert Buckland: Well, my right hon. Friend must speak for himself. I will tell the House a story: I remember when the present Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), held the office of Minister for Security, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling now enjoys. We used to have cross-governmental committee meetings—this was during the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—and I remember having a very fierce argument with a very senior permanent secretary at the Treasury about this very issue. I will not name them, because that would be wrong, but they told me that there was concern about the proliferation of criminal offences in this area because somehow it would add more of a regulatory burden to business. I disagreed hotly with that civil servant then, and I disagree hotly now.
The Minister for Security now has a great opportunity. It is a great privilege as a Minister to get on with a job that others would have wished to finish. We have passed the parcel to him, and he can open it and enjoy the gifts within.

John Penrose: My right hon. and learned Friend is being very generous with his time. May I say very gently that the anecdote that he told just now and the intervention that the Minister for Security has just made both come under the category of explanations, rather than justifications, for where we now find ourselves? The Bill is here, now. What has been said explains why we are here, but they do not justify why this stuff is not in the Bill.

Robert Buckland: Well, I am trying to be the diplomat and the reasonable interlocutor here. My hon. Friend is playing the bad cop with the Minister, and I am trying to play the good cop. I know that the Minister will eventually yield to that persistent approach; I hope that it will be done in a way that is neither oppressive nor unreliable.

Liam Byrne: I am incredibly grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. We appear to have an overload of rumness here.

Stephen Kinnock: Gallons of rum.

Liam Byrne: Yes. It is unusual for unity to break out on both sides of the House and on the Front and Back Benches. Given that ubiquity of unity, what, in the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s analysis, is the problem that is preventing these proposals from becoming the law of the land?

Robert Buckland: I think that there are two things: time and capacity. I do not criticise officials. I have never believed in doing so: it is a bad Minister who blames their officials, just as a bad workman blames his tools. Officials have a lot of work to do under immense pressure, and obviously they want to get it right. I want to get it right, too—we all do—but the Bill might be our last chance to do so in this Parliament. My goodness me, if we cannot get it right here, the Government are really going to have to get it right in the other place.
Let me deal further with the identification doctrine. Opposition new clause 40, which is very well worded, alludes to the US concept of respondeat superior. In effect, it is a wrap-all approach to vicarious liability that captures the acts or omissions of even very junior members of a corporate, which can lead to that corporate being liable. In some ways that has proved advantageous to prosecutors in the US: they have been able to identify more junior officials in corporates and, in effect, get them to co-operate with the authorities, which has opened up evidence that might not otherwise have been available.
The Law Commission looked at that approach. It also looked at what I might call the corporate culture approach in Australian Commonwealth law, and at Canadian legislation on the acts and mental states of senior managers. The Law Commission said—rightly, I think—that neither the US approach nor the Australian approach would be right for our jurisdiction.
The wording of my new clause 5 reflects the Law Commission’s recommendations in two ways. First, as the Law Commission’s report sets out, it would allow conduct to be
“attributed to a corporation if a member of its senior management engaged in, consented to or connived in the offence.”
Senior management is defined as
“any person who plays a significant role in the making of decisions about how the whole or a substantial part of the organisation’s activities are to be managed or organised, or the actual managing or organising of the whole or a substantial part of those activities.”
We have taken the Canadian approach.

Geoffrey Cox: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am intrigued by and have a great deal of sympathy with my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendments. As he knows, we discussed the issue when we served as Law Officers together. In the light of the Law Commission recommendation from which he has just quoted, I wonder why his new clause 5 includes the
“neglect of a senior manager.”
It seems conceptually a rather odd proposition that a fraud could be committed by neglect. The Law Commission did not go that far. Why has my right hon. and learned Friend included that provision?

Robert Buckland: That is a fair question. What I seek is to tease out from the Government the juxtaposition with the money laundering regulations. My right hon. and learned Friend will remember my making mention of regulation 92 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, which uses the word “neglect”. To be frank, I think that there is a problem with that, but it is important for us to tease out from Ministers a way to find a wording that is comprehensive.

Geoffrey Cox: I have enormous sympathy with my right hon. and learned Friend, who is doing the House a service by bringing these amendments to its and the Government’s attention. However, is it not reasonable—Opposition new clause 40 has this purpose in mind as well—that there should be quite a detailed consultation within the financial services industry and among any other commercial organisations that might be affected? New clause 5’s use of the word “neglect” creates an extraordinarily broad possibility for the application of the criminal offence.
I know what my right hon. and learned Friend is doing, and I applaud it. However, it seems to me that it is reasonable to require of the Government that they get it right, but, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) said, that must not become an excuse simply to say “mañana” and kick this into the long grass.

Robert Buckland: I am always grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend; I greatly enjoyed our time working together as Law Officers, and I yield to no one in my respect for him. He is right to make that point. I think I couched my remarks in a way that was faithful to the Law Commission’s options, which say that the Government do not necessarily have to do it all—there is a choice here, potentially. On a wider basis, I think  that the identification doctrine needs to be looked at. There could be an opportunity for further refinement, perhaps in the other place, and for provision to be made that refers specifically to the offences that I list in new clause 5.
Let me take my right hon. and learned Friend’s point in the spirit in which he made it, and build on it. New clause 5 includes the specification in Law Commission’s option 2B that an
“organisation’s chief executive officer and chief financial officer would always be considered to be members of its senior management.”
We have sought to be faithful to option 2B.

Margaret Hodge: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s excellent speech again, but does he share my view that we are past the stage of consultation? There has been a lot of consultation on the issue, from 2015 to 2017 and up until the Law Commission’s proposals in 2022. Choices now have to be made. The opportunity must be grasped to legislate on this issue, on which there is such wide consensus and such strong feelings.

Robert Buckland: If not now, when? I entirely agree.
I had not quite finished outlining the Law Commission’s point correctly refuting, or at least addressing, the perception of any problems with a knock-on effect on civil law liability. It sets out the case very well, giving two basic reasons why it does not think that there will be extensive consequences.
First, the Law Commission rightly says that in civil law, vicarious liability or liability for negligence will very often apply to civil disputes between companies and third parties even if the identification doctrine test threshold is not met, so those very important parts of civil liability will not be undermined.
Secondly, many civil cases in which the identification doctrine is invoked involve matters of liability existing between culpable directors—usually people who have gone—and those now running the company. Culpable directors often try to invoke the doctrine of illegality to try to seek some form of immunity or to resist any liability. That is usually dealt with under the doctrine that if someone has behaved fraudulently they cannot use that as a means of evading liability. That is right. We should not baulk, therefore, at addressing this issue head on.
In new clause 6, I seek to introduce new concepts of “failure to prevent” an individual liability. It is important that we make sure that when corporates are prosecuted it does not become a binary choice. Prosecutors should not seek to focus exclusively on the corporate at the expense of bringing individuals to book. I am afraid we have seen numerous examples in recent years of individuals who have escaped with impunity, rather than being held to account for their wrongdoing. I repeat all the arguments I have made about the international reputation of this jurisdiction, which is so important for our economy. Nothing under the sun is totally new: the language in new clause 6 is taken from section 36 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, and we have taken   the definitions of an “officer” in a corporate from the Online Harms Bill—that Bill keeps popping up in ways that people may not expect.
All these issues are inextricably linked. Let us view this issue not as some arcane question of criminal liability, but as a reputational issue, an economic issue, a security issue and an issue that matters for the future life and health of our society. If we are to make this work, it is essential that we give prosecutors the tools that they need to do the job. I have long been a supporter of the Roskill model, the Serious Fraud Office and the way that it has sought to prosecute crimes, but I am worried that the current structures do not allow us to put the focus on fraud that we need to maintain and enhance. Gone are the days, when I was not even a young barrister but still a law student—I am much younger than perhaps I look—of the big corporate prosecutions in the 1980s that occupied suites of rooms in Chichester Rents. In those days we made a virtue of going after the big boys and girls and making sure that they were brought to book. That seems to have gone out of fashion, and I do not think that is a good thing. Things are slipping through the cracks, whether it be what might be regarded as minor fraud or even major fraud: we are not giving them the seriousness they deserve.
We need to look again at the architecture of the prosecution of fraud. Indeed, Clare Montgomery KC spoke eloquently about this in the media the other day. She is a very experienced and senior prosecutor. I am where she is: after many years of thinking that the SFO was the right model, I am no longer so sure. We need to start a proper and mature debate about the mechanism and framework for prosecution in England and Wales. That is why the idea of a Committee commends itself to me and, I hope, to right hon. and hon. Members. A Joint Committee of both Houses considering this in proper time might produce a mature set of recommendations that could lead to an improvement in the practice of these measures. The House is littered with good intentions. We pass legislation with the best will every year, but we are constantly disappointed when it is not utilised properly. It is our responsibility as legislators to make sure that those who are given the job of carrying out legislation are able to do so in a way that restores our public reputation.
My exhortation is twofold: if the Government cannot accept the amendments, they should bring measures forward in the other place to make sure that the thrust of this reform will happen, and for the Government to work with me and other right hon. and hon. Members to help us improve the way in which we deal with the prosecution of fraud in this jurisdiction.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Alison Thewliss: It is a pleasure to follow the expertise of the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who outlined in great detail the significance and importance of the new clauses. Yet again, the House has the opportunity to get it right, and to get it right now, today, rather than at some point or when parliamentary time allows or after consultation or in due course. Why not do it today?
I have heard no arguments from Ministers in Committee, on Second Reading or here this afternoon to excuse why it cannot be done today, now, with the new clauses that have been so diligently and expertly proposed by right hon. and hon. Members. As I said yesterday, these are cross-party new clauses. They are the most widely supported new clauses I have seen, and there is no reason why the Government cannot accept not only the proposals from this side of the House but the diligent work of their own Back Benchers on the new clauses. It makes absolute sense.
I support the Government amendments before us, both the correcting ones and those that allow Scottish Ministers and their responsibilities to be added to the Bill. It is good that they have been brought forward now, although I am slightly wary that that happened at such a late stage and that the problem had been missed. Regardless, I am happy to see them today. I also support the amendments on information sharing between agencies, which make sense.
I am, however, concerned that the Government will not accept the “failure to prevent” amendment. As I said in Committee, when the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) was a Back Bencher he was very supportive of the “failure to prevent” provisions, right up until 13 October 2022, when he said:
“Of all the measures we have talked about today, this would have the biggest effect in terms of cutting down on economic crime, because lots of our financial organisations are complicit when it suits their interests to be so.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 310.]
There is nothing in the Bill that would change that situation, but the new clause would. As I pointed out in Committee, now he is not just the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton but the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. He has argued for a “failure to prevent” economic crime offence not just on 13 October last year, but on 7 July 2022, on 1, 22 and 28 February 2022, on 2 December 2021, on 9 November 2021, on 22 September 2021, on 18 May 2021, on 9 November 2020, on 25 February 2020, on 19 July 2019, on 23 April 2019, on 18 December 2018 and on 9 October 2018. Given that the hon. Gentleman has spent his parliamentary career arguing for this, it beggars belief that now he is a Minister with the power to implement it, he is not actually doing so.

Drew Hendry: These are very important points. Given their importance, should the Minister not put down his phone and listen to what my hon. Friend is saying?

Alison Thewliss: One Minister is on his phone and the other—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton—is sitting at the back of the Chamber having a gab. This is not ideal, but perhaps the Minister has already heard what I have to say and does not want to hear it again.
“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!”

Thomas Tugendhat: It is not the first time I have heard this speech.

Alison Thewliss: It is not, and it certainly will not be the last. It could be if the Minister accepted the amendments, but he is not going to do that, and he will keep hearing this speech until he does: that is the truth of the matter.
As other Members have said, there is a precedent for a “failure to prevent” measure. It is in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Bribery Act 2010, so the concept already exists, and there is no reason why it cannot be applied today. Even if the Government are saying, “We want to extend it to other areas”, that should not limit us today, when the Bill gives us the opportunity.
I also support new clauses 4, 5 and 6. The right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon made an important point about what senior managers have to do, which is also relevant to the Online Safety Bill. I rather like the definition of an offence committed with
“the consent, connivance or neglect of a senior manager.”
All those things contribute to economic crime. This is, if you will, a sin of omission, and we should take the opportunity to tighten up these loopholes. It is one thing to know about something that is happening, it is another thing to look the other way, and it is another thing not to do your job properly and allow that something to happen. This would cover all those eventualities.
New clause 7, in the name of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) deals with whistleblowing. It is an excellent new clause which would enhance the Bill and offer protection to the very people who flag up these economic crimes. Whenever I think about whistleblowing, I remember a little cartoon that I saw many years ago showing a man sitting at a computer terminal in an office with a sign above his head saying, “Congratulations Frank, whistleblower of the month.” I understand that the cartoonist was Bill Proud. Every time I think about that, I think about the lack of protection offered to whistleblowers, and how much more the Government could be doing to ensure that those who do speak up are protected.
The organisation Protect says that it has offered advice on whistleblowing to 2,500 people a year, and that of those who have contacted it about their experiences, 65% have suffered some kind of detriment as a result of their whistleblowing. There is no incentive for many people to speak out when they see something wrong. They feel that they will lose their job or their promotion and will have to work somewhere else, and also that this might follow them around if they are seeking references for a new job. There is a real problem here, and the Government could, if they wished, deal with it in the Bill: it would make sense for them to do so.
I also support the cost cap suggested in new clause 21. Bill Browder spoke about this issue very powerfully during the Public Bill Committee evidence sessions. The balance is completely skewed to the side of the criminals and away from the Government, and away from the prosecutors and the agencies who want to take on these crimes but simply cannot afford to do so. Bill Browder said:
“What I have learned is that the law enforcement agencies effectively refuse to open criminal cases unless they are 100% sure that they can win without any tough fight on the other side.”––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2022; c. 65.]
And what we have learned, even just this week, is that the other side can afford anything that allows them to support their case. Indeed, that was made clear in the exchanges on the urgent question on the Wagner Group earlier today. The other side are very well set up financially: they can afford the very best lawyers, while the prosecutors sit there with nothing in their armoury to take on these  oligarchs and kleptocrats. That is not acceptable, and a cost cap such as the one suggested in new clause 21 would go some way to addressing it.
Bill Browder has also talked powerfully about the Magnitsky case. He produced a load of evidence about money that been stolen and laundered, being put through various accounts. He had traced all the money, some of which had ended up in the United Kingdom. When he presented the case to prosecutors, to the National Crime Agency and to various other agencies, they all refused to take it on. A crime has been committed, and we know who committed it and where the money ended up, but prosecutors here do nothing about it because it would cost them money that they might never see again. As a result, crimes go unprosecuted in the United Kingdom. It is unacceptable that, by failing to take on new clause 21 and other such measures that would cap costs, the Government are allowing this to continue.
I would support further measures on sanctions. Further to the urgent question, monitoring of sanctions and their effectiveness needs to be a lot tighter. Any sensible sanctions scheme would not have waivers for warlords.
I very much support the new clauses on the proceeds of crime and compensation for victims, for the people of Ukraine and indeed for the people of Iran, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). Those measures are important. There are schemes such as the financial services compensation scheme, but in many cases that does not fully compensate, or compensate at all, those victims of economic crime. Appropriate compensation should be given, given the real and devastating effect that financial crime can have on our constituents. People who feel that they have been duped will carry that around for a long time, so compensation is important, and there is real need for finance both to fight the war in Ukraine and to rebuild that country thereafter.
The hon. Lady’s new clause 39 on reporting on economic crime to this House is important, as is the new clause from the official Opposition on having a Committee of this House to deal with economic crime. At the moment, this is spread too far across too many Committees and there is no accountability to one place in the House on all the aspects of economic crime. The Treasury Committee, of which I was a member, produced a good report and other Committees—some Members here are former Chairs of those Committees—have produced excellent reports on these things, but there is no gathering mechanism to put all these different aspects of economic crime in one place and to be accountable for them. Given the scale of economic crime across these islands, a Committee that had that specific job would be important; it would be significant to have somewhere where all that information could be stored. The members of that Committee could also take evidence in private, if that was appropriate, from the agencies involved, if that was not to be done in public.
There is an awful lot more the Government could and should be doing in this Bill. It is an opportunity that should not pass us by. It is Burns night, so I shall finish with a wee bit of Burns that seems topical, given the discussion:
“Far be’t frae me that I aspire
To blame your legislation,
Or say, ye wisdom want, or fire,
To rule this mighty nation.”
There is a lot more the Government could be doing. Let us get this done and get it right this time.

David Davis: I am going to be brief and speak simply to new clauses 1 and 2, which stand in the name of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), in my name and in the names of a number of other long-standing defenders of justice in Britain. The new clauses, in effect, make SLAPPs near impossible where they are used to protect economic crime. The provisions are far too narrow, by the way, but that is what the Bill demands. I will leave it to him to explain the mechanism, but I want to talk for a couple of minutes about how important this is and how we got to where we are today.
The issue dates back to about 2000, or perhaps a bit earlier, when London had become liberalised and the Putin oligarchs and others, including some Chinese people, were looking for places to hide their ill-gotten gains and behaviour. London was a wonderful target for that. There were vast flows of money in which they could hide the billions they were stealing from the Russian people and others.
At the time, there was pretty slapdash corporate admin—we were talking about that yesterday in respect of Companies House—and, I say this quite brutally, the complete feebleness of the British establishment, by which I mean everybody: both parties; and the agencies tasked with controlling this, the Serious Fraud Office, which has been a waste of space, and the NCA, which has not been good enough. It was created to tackle this but has not been good enough. All those things were happening. I say to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on the Opposition Front Bench that it goes wider than the Conservative party. It starts with Blair/Brown and goes on to Cameron/ Osborne. All of them made mistakes. The golden visa that the hon. Gentleman talked about was created just as we were rushing into the collapse of western financial capitalism under the previous Government. We were too soft—

Stephen Kinnock: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I agree that the creation of the scheme was under the new Labour Administration, but the point I made in my speech was that a number of those golden visas were given after the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014. He is right that successive Governments are guilty of naivety and complacency, but there is a point in 2014 when we really needed a different approach.

David Davis: There is no doubt that the more recent you are, the more salient the case. Frankly, I can remember being ashamed of a British Prime Minister hosting Putin at the Olympics only a few years after Litvinenko was murdered in our country in the most cruel and overt act of state terrorism. Neither Government dealt with that. Cameron’s action was grotesque in the extreme, but neither Government dealt with it. Similarly, both Governments kowtowed to China after Tibet and all the rest of it. That has been done too many times. It is the entire system, not just one Government or another.
London is a fabulously attractive place for the Russians or the Chinese. If you want to be somewhere else than Russia, this is the place to be. We have facilitated that at every turn. Here comes the issue to which SLAPPs relate. We have a legal system that is probably the most brilliant in the world in delivering fair outcomes and good justice, but it is also phenomenally expensive, which means it is one-sided in its operation between an oligarch and an ordinary citizen, journalist or whoever they may be.
In conjunction with that are the things that flow from it, such as the behaviour of solicitors, to some of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), who is not in his place, gave a fair old pasting yesterday, but one that was deserved. The private investigators industry, unregulated, undertakes crimes to gather information for use as weapons against other people. Our courts—not uniquely, but outstandingly—allow that information to be used. In each individual case that might be the right decision, but the collective effect of that is to suck criminally based information into our system and therefore engender and help the industry.
All that is why new clause 1 and 2 are vital. That all had the effect of creating a vast, possibly unintentional institutional cover-up for criminal activity: money laundering, fraud and concealment of evil actions abroad. Let us bear in mind that some of the oligarchs we are talking about are murderers. The system murders people. It is evil activity. That is why new clauses 1 and 2 are incredibly important.
What the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill is proposing in new clauses 1 and 2 is a second best option. We already heard the best option in earlier interventions: a freestanding Bill immediately, because this is happening now. There are court cases going on as I stand here in which people are having their lives destroyed by SLAPPs. The next best is to have it in the Bill of Rights, but we know that that is way down the timetable, for all sorts of reasons. We may not see it before the next election, in which case we will have lost two more years.
The new clauses amount to a way of dealing with this criminal—or near criminal—activity in a way that is not susceptible to a finely turned piece of law. I listened with fascination to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) on that point. Getting that right is difficult; getting this right is not, because the greatest enemy of evil is a free press. In our country in the last couple of decades we have allowed our free press to become gagged and crippled. If we can take that gag away and remove those bonds, we will suddenly expose all the things that we need to deal with. We will see the weaknesses I talked about—the SFO and the NCA—and put them right, one by one. That is why we should support new clauses 1 and 2. I talked before about the weaknesses of the SFO and the NCA. We will see those weaknesses and we will put them right, one by one. That is why we should support this measure today.

Margaret Hodge: I shall be very brief, because I took a lot of time in the House yesterday. I strongly support many of the new clauses being moved by Back Benchers across the Chamber today. If I can just say something about politics, this heartens me and shows that there are ways in which we can work together to pursue the national interest across the political divide.  It breathes a bit of confidence and life back into the political process that we have all chosen to join in our careers, so I commend those individual Back Benchers who have put themselves forward and who are speaking today.
The proposals from the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) on strengthening the support for whistleblowing are hugely important. Whistleblowers are an essential part of our armoury in the fight against money laundering and fraud, and we know that, despite all the legal rights, they are not protected. People lose their jobs, their families get destroyed and they are left penniless. Therefore, the establishment of a capability that will do nothing other than protect and promote whistleblowers in the crucial work they do is really important, and I hope that it will be adopted.
The importance of legislating to tackle the abuse of our legal system by oligarchs and others, which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has just talked about so eloquently, is also really important. I want to be blunt about this and say to those on the Government Front Bench that, if they do not accept this new clause, they will not get a Bill during this Parliament. I bet that is right, so for heaven’s sake let us use this opportunity to get this bit of legislation in. It does not cover everything we would like it to cover, but it will have an impact. It will also give us the experience to see whether we have got the legislation right. I am sure that all the lawyers who helped to draft these new clauses put their best brains into them, but if they have not got them right, we will be able to learn those lessons when we come to extend these measures beyond economic crime.
The right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) made an excellent contribution on the reform of criminal corporate liability, and I want to say something about that. It is not that we want to suddenly bang up a whole load of lawyers, accountants, companies, service providers and all those people who we know are the ones that facilitate or collude with much of the economic crime that takes place. Only the best preventive mechanism that we can think of will force a change of behaviour, and we are not doing that on the back of hope; we are doing it on the back of reality. We know from the Bribery Act 2010 and from the regulations on tax evasion and on health and safety at work that putting this sort of liability on individuals and corporations is the only way to transform behaviour. Last week’s amendment to the Online Safety Bill by the Conservative rebels showed the mood of the House, and I would urge Ministers to think about that. The mood of the House is to use this effective tool to try to transform behaviour in all spheres of life, whether in relation to online harms or to economic crime.
I hope that we will hear from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) soon on the issue of “freeze not seize”. I know he is going to make a number of propositions, and I hope he will not mind if I say something about this. We have been working with an extensive group of lawyers to see whether we can move to a position where we do not just freeze the assets but seize them in order to repurpose them and, particularly in the current context, use them to support the reconstruction of Ukraine. We have finally got a chink in the armour in that regard, but let me say something else first. The lawyers we have talked to work with non-governmental organisations in this field, and the  advice they give is always going to be slightly different from the advice that comes from the lawyers working in the Government service. I think we bring a new perspective, and I urge Ministers to listen to what we have to say. The chink is worth examining at this stage, even if we do not go for the further propositions, to show that we mean it when we say that we want to seize this money.

Thomas Tugendhat: If the right hon. Lady can come up with a way to seize assets and use them for the purposes we have been discussing—notably for the reconstruction of Ukraine, but for other purposes, too—I am all ears. I have had long conversations with the representatives of Governments around the world, and I am yet to hear an idea that works. If she has one, I am happy to hear it.

Margaret Hodge: This is not our idea. It comes from a recent seminar we held with lawyers who support the Royal United Services Institute and Spotlight on Corruption. I will leave it to the hon. Member for Huntingdon to expand on it, but I think it is a very interesting chink that we can exploit, although it is not the total answer.
A draft Bill is being prepared by another group of lawyers, but I do not think we can add it to this Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. I am sceptical that we will find a chance to introduce the draft Bill in this Parliament, but I assure the Minister that we will pursue it after this Bill has passed. I just hope the Government examine the chink we have identified and run with it.
New clause 21 on cost caps, which stands in my name, is part of the way in which we could better fund the enforcement agencies in their fight against economic crime while also preventing economic criminals from exploiting our legal system. At the moment, we have a “loser pays” law, which has two consequences. First, when our enforcement agencies embark on litigation and lose, there is a massive cost to the public purse. We saw that with the unexplained wealth order against Kazakhstan’s Nazarbayeva family. Subsequent investigative journalism suggested that the family told mistruths to the court, but that has never been rectified. Nevertheless, the costs vary from £1.5 million to £2 million.
The SFO took a similar case against Serco involving prisoners who were—I have forgotten the word.

Thomas Tugendhat: Tagged.

Margaret Hodge: I thank the Minister. I am having a senior moment.
The SFO had clearly prepared the case badly, but there was a discovery point that got the litigation thrown out of court, and a huge sum was claimed in costs. The cost to the public purse is enormous.

Kit Malthouse: I understand the right hon. Lady’s point about the cost to the police and other authorities of failed investigations but, in my experience, much of the problem stems from the division of the spoils in those cases that succeed in   securing the proceeds of crime. As she will know, the money is divided between the Treasury, the Home Office and the police.
When I was at City Hall, we tried to cut a better deal in which the police would effectively recover the full cost of a prosecution, and any profit would then be split, so that pursuing such prosecutions would be costless to the police. Tim Godwin was then deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police, and his view was that the police would then have a strong case to invest even more in this line of investigation, and they would therefore have more success and there would be more money to go around for everyone. It is not necessarily the case that legislation will solve the problem. It is more to do with the deal between the police and the Government.

Margaret Hodge: Indeed, and we considered an amendment in yesterday’s debate to address that specific issue, so that any funds arising from a confiscation order, or other such order, could be enjoyed by the enforcement agencies themselves, which would provide an additional incentive. We discussed last week’s Danske Bank settlement of criminal issues in the United States, from which the enforcement agencies received $2 billion. Just imagine the amount of enforcement activity that could be funded from that fee. We are timid in that regard, so I completely concur with the right hon. Gentleman on that.
The other argument in relation to cost caps is that the fear of facing huge costs if one fails in a case provides a disincentive to the enforcement agents to pursue as vigorously as one would like economic crime prosecutions. The Minister has said to me previously that there is no evidence to back that up, but I just do not buy that. A proper analysis of how people in the NCA, the Serious Fraud Office and other agencies think before they decide to pursue a prosecution would very quickly reveal that there is a disincentive. It is for those two reasons that we considered cost caps. The US is our model. Each party bears its own costs, which is much more effective. We heard figures yesterday—I will not repeat them because I have to get on—that the US gets much more money in and it does not cost as much to its enforcement agencies.
Those are the things that I wanted to cover. I hope that, in summing up, the Minister will please give us some concessions. I urge him to reflect on the degree of unanimity across the House and on the very senior figures on his own Back Benches who have chosen to work, in particular, with members of the two all-party groups to reach consensus. We do argue these things out. We come to a view after an extensive debate on a subject; it is never an open and shut case. Back Benchers are in a better position at present than those on the Front Bench, so I ask the Minister to listen to us because we may just be right and it would be good if there was a concession on something.

Mary Robinson: I rise to speak to new clause 7, which is in my name, and the names of Members across the House. It would require the Secretary of State to set up an office for whistleblowers within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, and as chair of the all-party group for whistleblowers, I wish to register my interest.
The office for whistleblowers would be an independent body, which reports to Parliament and would have three main duties: to protect whistleblowers from detriment resulting from their disclosures; to ensure that these disclosures are investigated; and to escalate information and evidence of wrongdoing that is outside its remit to the appropriate authority, including regulators or, if appropriate, the police.
I thank the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who introduced this new clause at Committee stage and spoke to it robustly and with the knowledge and passion of someone who has been pursuing this for many years.
Despite a complete lack of reference in the Bill, whistleblowers and whistleblowing have a pivotal role in the fight against economic crime. Indeed, when this proposal was debated at Committee, the right hon. Member for Barking referenced her time as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and noted that all the work that the Committee did on economic crime came from whistleblowers, and yet, in a Bill that seeks to tackle economic crime, whistleblowers are not referenced.
One statistic that has been shared many times when debating this subject in Parliament is that 43% of economic crime is detected and exposed through whistleblowers. However, in his response to the Committee debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) noted that he believed that about 100% of economic crime detection could be attributed to whistleblowing. Once again, that appears to be confirmation that, if we want to know where an economic crime is being committed, it is most likely to be a whistleblower who exposes it.
The objectives of the office I propose in this new clause would be to encourage support and advise whistleblowers, providing a safe place to share information and acting on evidence of detriment to the whistleblower. We simply must protect whistleblowers who speak out, risking retaliation, as we have heard, harassment and losing their job—or, in the case of serious organised crime, possibly a much worse outcome. The office will enhance protections of those who whistleblow, while at the same time incentivising such disclosures by providing a safe space to share information.
There is evidence that an office for whistleblowers does incentivise disclosures. In 2020, the International Bar Association measured countries with whistleblowing legislation against a list of 20 best practices. The UK met just five of the 20. Meanwhile, the United States, where an Office of the Whistleblower sits within the Securities and Exchange Commission, met 16 of the best practices. That office received 12,300 disclosures in 2022, nearly double that of 2020, and, as its chief stated:
“The significant increase in the number of whistleblower tips and awards since the program’s inception shows that the program, with its enhanced confidentiality protections, is effectively incentivizing whistleblowers to make the often difficult decision to come forward with information”.
This is a cross-party, cross-departmental issue. Whistleblowers are to be thanked for, among many things, uncovering waste in our public services, highlighting poor or dangerous medical practices and conduct, and revealing the laundering, funnelling and theft of vast amounts of public and private money. When people steal from the public purse, it is society that suffers and  our constituents who pay the price. According to law firm Pinsent Masons, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs received nearly 14,000 tip-offs regarding misuse of the covid furlough scheme. In just one case, £27.4 million of taxpayer money had been falsely claimed by a fraudster who, despite never having been to the UK, registered four companies in London and claimed furlough for more than 2,700 non-existent employees. Some £26.5 million of public money was recovered as a result, in a case that also reinforces the importance of Companies House reform.
We have heard details of the Danske Bank money laundering scheme in previous debates, so I will not delve into the details again, but in that case we know that criminals took advantage of UK limited liability partnerships. That is why the reforms at Companies House and to limited partnerships are needed. However, once again, it was a whistleblower who brought that $230 billion economic crime to light, halting the stream of illegal Russian money laundering. Without him, it might never have been uncovered and might have continued for years.
That was before Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but we know that illicit finance helped to fund the war and will continue to fund it, unless it is stopped. I welcome the swift action the Government have taken to tackle the scourge of financial crime, first by passing the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, then by introducing the Bill we are debating today. However, while the Government have introduced measures that will go far in preventing economic crime, as it stands, neither piece of legislation supports those very people who are key to its detection.
Having spoken to many dozens of whistleblowers over the years, I know that someone who reports wrongdoing can risk jeopardising their reputation, their career, their mental health, their wellbeing and that of their family. It is not a decision made lightly. Whistle-blowers who expose economic crime must balance the risk to themselves in the name of doing what is right. That should not be the case.
The UK was once a world leader in whistleblowing protections, and we were the first EU country to introduce whistleblowing legislation—the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. That was seen as a landmark moment for whistleblowers, with protections for workers in employment tribunals and an expectation that wrongdoing would  be addressed. However, as I have previously outlined  in this place, PIDA applies in reality only to some employees—not contractors, not trustees and not volunteers—and it does not cover those connected to financial crime who may wish to disclose information. In addition, although workers can bring claims to an employment tribunal, just 4% of whistleblowing claims are successful. With results that low and potential risks so high, how can we expect the public to have confidence in the system? That is why we need to take measures to protect and support whistleblowers, which will in turn encourage people to speak up and report economic crime.
I do not intend to press the new clause to a vote, but I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, intervened on Second Reading to express his wish for whistleblower provisions  to be introduced to the Bill. By supporting the new clause, the Government would be doing exactly that, and I hope that they will feel able to do so.

Layla Moran: I rise to speak to the Liberal Democrat new clauses tabled in my name, with a particular focus on new clauses 3, 30, 31 and 39. Before I come to those new clauses, I put on the record my support and thanks for the many varied new clauses that we have been discussing, including those tabled by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), the right hon. Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and many others.
In their breadth and depth, those new clauses reflect my own somewhat conflicted feelings about where we are with the Bill. On the one hand, it is very clear that we are much further on than a year ago, which is surely a good thing. That has come off the back of strong cross-party working, and I echo what the right hon. Member for Barking said earlier about that restoring faith in the democratic process. If only our constituents could see that we do work together and that it results in positive things.
However, it is also fair to say that we still have much to do. I know that those are not just my thoughts, because they have also been expressed by the former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who is now the Minister for Security. Indeed, in a sense, he and others are the great hope—the men on the inside who we hope are going to push much of what we want to see. I hope that they are hearing yet again in this debate, and in the hopefully very brief Third Reading debate later, just how much further we want to go. Notwithstanding that positive movement in the right direction, I am worried that we have started to back-pedal in some areas.
One of those areas is golden visas, which new clause 3 would address. Let us look at them in some detail. Tier 1 investor visas were the “blind eye turned” route straight into the UK that was used and abused by so many of Putin’s cronies, not to mention kleptocrats from other regimes. They were a golden ticket—quite literally—to come to the UK and launder money with barely any scrutiny or transparency. Recognising that, the then Conservative Home Secretary instituted and launched a review, and the promise was that the findings would be published. For a long time, I—and others, I am sure—had been tabling and asking questions of the Home Office to show that we had not forgotten and that the delay was inexcusable.
So imagine my delight when, the week before last, Members saw a written ministerial statement in the name of the Home Secretary entitled “The Tier 1 (Investor) route: Review of operation between 30 June 2008 and 6 April 2015”. My heart leapt for joy. Finally, five years on, were we going to get the answers that we sought to questions such as: to what extent had Putin’s cronies managed to embed themselves into the UK economy or even into the upper echelons of British society, and I include in that politics? How many of the golden visas issued went to Putin’s cronies or their family members? What other countries were these visa holders from? Crucially, where are these people now?   How many of them are still in the UK? How many of them have acquired citizenship, and what have the Government done about that?
Given that we waited five years, and given that the Government and successive Ministers had promised from the Dispatch Box that we would get some or all of those answers, we were entitled to a substantive response. When the review was published, my heart sank, because instead of what they had promised, the Government published what they termed a “summary” of the recommendations—not even the actual recommendations themselves, but a summary. Furthermore, the summary frankly told us nothing that we did not already know. It is galling that we still do not know how many people have exploited this system. The statement did not even give us a number or a rough ballpark figure for golden visa holders who had been identified as a risk. The Government admitted that they had identified a “small minority”, but given that 6,000 visa holders were being reviewed—a figure that, by the way, we already knew before the publication of the statement—what is the figure for that small minority? Is it in the tens, hundreds or thousands? I think that anything under 3,000 would still qualify, so what is it?
We know that 10 oligarchs who were sanctioned held golden visas. In March, Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place found out it was eight—presumably the difference is that we have sanctioned more people since then, so the number of people on the list who are sanctioned increases, and I can understand that, although confirmation would be helpful. That shows the Government can be specific when they want to be, so why can they not be specific on this? The statement does not say very much about how many acquired British citizenship, what nationality they were or what will happen to them now, beyond very broad generalities.
Furthermore, the bit that worries me most is that in the words of the Home Office, this written statement was its “final response”. Following my point of order that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, graciously answered in the House on the day of the statement’s publication, I wrote again to the Home Office to ask, “When are you going to do this? Why have you done this?” It said that was its substantive response, and
“we will not be commenting further”.
I sincerely hope, especially given the comments that the Minister has made in the past, that he will do the House the courtesy of giving us an answer or explanation for what on earth happened here. I seem to remember—it might even have been in the first week after his being appointed, and we were all very excited about that—that he confirmed from the Dispatch Box that the information would be released, and then it was in written statements later that the tone and the words changed. What happened? We deserve to know the answers.
I am afraid to say that from where I sit, the whole thing stinks. It undermines much of the good work we are doing here to try to get transparency. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. After years of the Government saying that they would do this, for them to back-pedal stinks of a cover-up. I am not accusing the Minister of doing that, but I think we can legitimately suggest that it could be perceived that way, and that undermines everything else we are doing. I sincerely hope, should we be allowed to divide on the new clause, that Members will come with us through the Lobby and do what the Government said they would do in the first place.

Alison Thewliss: The hon. Lady is making some excellent points about the golden visas. Does she find the lack of curiosity from the Government about these golden visa holders and what they have been up to as remarkable as I do, when compared with some of the difficulties that our constituents have in asking for something as simple as a visitor visa to have their granny come over and visit from Iran?

Layla Moran: I thank the hon. Lady for her point, which is well made. The thing is that the Government were curious, and they did this review, which is sitting there. That is clear—the one thing that the written statement confirmed was that a review had been done and recommendations had come from it, but all we got was a summary of the recommendations. What I take from that is that they were curious and they found out, but now they do not want to tell us. What on earth happened? It is not a good look.
To move on from golden visas, we desperately need to see more action in a number of other areas to ensure that we properly tackle economic crime, particularly by kleptocrats. It is right that we focus on Russians, but it is worth saying that the Bill will apply to many other flavours of kleptocrats and bad people. As other hon. Members have said, this could be our last chance for many years to get this right, so we should consider how else it might apply. Last year, for example, Hong Kong Watch highlighted concerns about the dirty money that Hong Kong officials had gained through corruption and that has now been spent by the families of officials in the UK, including on property. I raised those concerns at the time and I will continue to press Ministers on them.
I tabled new clause 30, about Iran, to show how important it is to focus not on a single country, but anywhere there are human rights abuses. Anoosheh Ashoori made the point that
“there are a large number of children and relatives of the regime that, like the Russian oligarchs, like living the high life here and have assets here.”
Why are we not pursuing them? The new clause asks the Government to use existing legislation to do an audit and report back to Parliament. We should apply the Bill to as many places as it can be effective.
All that takes resourcing—a familiar refrain in the House—which is addressed by new clause 31. Frankly, resourcing is a lacuna in this Bill and its predecessor. I was encouraged by the number of amendments on establishing an economic crime fighting fund, which shows that it is clearly the shared will of hon. Members on both sides of the House that we put the resourcing and money behind this legislation to ensure that it is done properly. The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly share that commitment. I say to the Minister that that money would not be frittered away; it would be an investment, because if we fund the agencies properly, they will start to bring the money back in. We know the exorbitant amount that we think we are losing to economic crime, so any investment in getting some of that money back would surely be good.
In conclusion, I urge Ministers to take note of the willingness of hon. Members on both sides of the House to act, and to take heart from it. There is much more to be done. I hope that the Bill is the next chapter, but not the last, in the House’s fight against economic  crime in this country. I sincerely hope that Ministers will continue to work with us in our common aim of bringing about transparency and light to tackle this once and for all, so that we are never again left in this embarrassing position.

Jonathan Djanogly: I rise to speak to new clause 23, in my name and those of the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and 17 other hon. Members on both sides of the House, for whose support I am grateful. This comprehensive Bill is significant in its scope and its intention to counter fraud, which is wholly welcome, but new clause 23 speaks to its lack of focus on the proceeds of economic crime, which are the proceeds resulting from acts committed in the UK and overseas.
Such proceeds have circulated in the national economy, largely unimpeded, for too long, and a host of existing limitations and issues, such as the lack of proper financing for related law enforcement bodies, which has been much discussed over the last two days, have a compounding negative effect. Unfortunately, those limitations are all too frequently at the expense of and to the detriment of hard-working and honest taxpayers in all our constituencies—not least mine—and those who often stand to benefit are the criminals and those sanctioned for reasons related to foreign affairs. Tackling that issue is the primary motivation behind the new clause.
More broadly, like-minded countries are increasingly focusing on this area, including our fellow parliamentarians in Canada. In June last year, they made technical yet significant changes to their economic sanctions legislation, including the Sergei Magnitsky law regime. Effectively, those changes allow existing sanctions for freezing assets to be converted into orders for the seizure of those assets. Similar measures are being considered by the European Commission, in other European capitals such as Tallinn, and in the United States. Unless our regulatory measures vis-à-vis the proceeds of economic crime are reviewed and strengthened, the UK risks falling behind, which I believe would be both morally and politically unpalatable.
I also believe that new clause 23 speaks to the wider lack of a much-needed national conversation about such proceeds, where they are held, why they are in the UK and, crucially, what the potential benefits of clamping down on them could be. It would, I suggest, be to the clear benefit of the taxpayer, but also crucially to those elsewhere in need of financial reparations such as in Ukraine, if the proceeds could be seized, repurposed and put to work. I say this recognising that in September it was estimated by the World Bank that at least $349 billion would be needed for Ukraine’s reconstruction, and one can only imagine that the figure is now much more significant.
It is, however, important to recognise that it is not enough for measures to be simply passed into law; their implementation must be backed, supported and seen through. The American authorities have provided a notable example of one such action that I thought would be of interest to the House. In May last year, a $300 million yacht, the property of a sanctioned Russian oligarch, was seized by Fiji at the request of the United States in a joint law enforcement operation. This followed  the issuance of a seizure warrant that declared the yacht in question to be subject to forfeiture based on probable cause of violations of US law, including money laundering and conspiracy. In other words, it was not the asset-freezing sanctions themselves that enabled seizure, but rather the active enforcement of the breach of such sanctions.
Such violations and action should not, however, be looked at in isolation. Instead, they should be considered in the wider context of international affairs—namely Russia’s brutal, illegal and ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Co-ordinated through the US Justice Department’s KleptoCapture taskforce, the seizure of the yacht in question sent a blunt message that, in the words of the FBI director, Christopher Wray, those who contribute to the advancement of Russia’s malign activities will be sought and
“brought to justice, regardless of where, or how, they attempt to hide.”
This is a message—a strong message—that cannot be ignored or overlooked.
This yacht seizure was a clear example of the rigorous enforcement of the law, and one that I believe should be emulated here in the UK, with related regulatory measures subsequently strengthened on top. The recent arrest of another oligarch in London on suspicion of money laundering in breach of asset-freezing sanctions was a step in the right direction. The problem in the UK, however, is that the criminality of breaking sanctions attaches to the quantum of the breach, not to the overall value of the amount sanctioned. For example, if a sanctioned oligarch were to be found with a carrier bag full of sanctions-breaching cash, that cash amount is all that is liable for confiscation, not his wider sanctioned wealth.
This was why we attempted to table a cross-party amendment—the so-called chink in the armour amendment, as described by the right hon. Member for Barking. It proposed, in short, that non-disclosure of all assets by a sanctioned individual would itself be a criminal offence, and that the total frozen amount could be subject to seizure as a penalty for such an offence. Of course, this is a much lighter step than providing, as in Canada, for the Attorney General to be given the power to convert freezing orders into seizing orders, and I also tried to table such an amendment, by the way. Unfortunately, these proposals were deemed to be out of scope of the Bill, which is why we are only debating the broader terms of new clause 23.
However, given that this Bill follows on from the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which involved fast-tracking sanctions laws in response to the invasion of Ukraine, it does seem slightly ironic to me that updating that sanctions regime falls outside the scope of this follow-on Bill. None the less, I of course accept the House’s ruling on that issue, but I implore the Minister and the Foreign Office who lead on this issue to stop passing the buck between Departments, as we keep seeing, and to listen to the majority of hon. Members across all parties who feel that Russia and Russians as the aggressors must pay for their barbarity and devastation of Ukraine, and not leave it up to British and western taxpayers to foot the Bill for Ukraine’s reconstruction.
New clause 4, which was so powerfully and expertly introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland),  would create an offence of failure to prevent fraud. That important proposal attempts to close a large gap in our existing fraud legislation book. I go back to 2010 when, as shadow Solicitor General I led for the then Conservative Opposition on the Bribery Act, which we also did once we came into government. Working on a cross-party basis, we added into that Act the concept of senior managers of a venture being liable for bribery happening at the coalface, if they could not show that they took all reasonable steps to prevent that bribery from happening. Before that, prosecutors had to prove at each layer of management that those above them, the so called “directing minds”, were guilty of the crime. In practice, that was almost always impossible with larger companies—my right hon. and learned Friend explained this at some length earlier so I will not go into great detail. As he said, that Act focuses the minds of those in management, especially in big companies, so that they think carefully about the processes they have in place, and regularly review such processes. Such an approach also states that inaction is not acceptable, let alone an excuse.
The resulting new bribery law was considered a great success. I recall a discussion about a decade ago with the then SFO director, Sir David Green, who was publicly advocating for the same change to be made for the offence of fraud, and I note the SFO’s current director is saying exactly the same. To put that in context, the main fraud prosecutors in this country have consistently been saying for more than a decade that they need this legislation in order to do their jobs properly, yet here we are some dozen years later, and it still has not happened. I am frankly amazed by that, and I am not quite sure why it has not happened. I heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the history of how the measure was delayed, but I am still not sure why it was delayed. I recall the now Lord Chancellor talking of consulting on this issue back in 2016, so again—why the inaction?
Together with other right hon. and hon. Members I got a letter dated 20 January from Ministers from the Home Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy saying that they are “carefully assessing options”. Does that imply another dozen years of assessing something that we all know needs to happen? If we are to be serious about combating fraud, we must get on with this. If the Government are not happy with the wording in new clause 4, they should come up with their own wording. Fraud now constitutes just under half of all crime committed in the UK, and we must be doing more to counter it at all levels.

Rosie Winterton: I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions.
On the draft Environmental Targets (Biodiversity) (England) Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 302 and the Noes were 166, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Environmental Targets (Woodland and Trees Outside Woodland) (England) Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 302, the Noes were 166, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Environmental Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 300, the Noes were 170, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Environmental Targets (Fine Particulate Matter) (England) Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 170, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Environmental Targets (Residual Waste) (England) Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 170, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Liam Byrne: It is a pleasure to speak to new clauses 1 and 2 in my name and those of many others, and it is a pleasure to follow so many excellent contributions to the debate. I hope it has become clear that there is a wide and deep cross-party consensus about the need to take this overdue Bill and repower it with not only good laws but proper resourcing so that we can begin to ensure that economic criminals in this country are put under rather more pressure.
A lot is in a name, and the Bill’s name is the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. As the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) pointed out, what is crucial to ensuring the corporate transparency we need to police economic crime is information. Much of that information comes from whistleblowers and, crucially, from courageous journalists who are prepared to take tremendous risks and go to tremendous lengths to pursue the truth, publish the truth and hold the guilty to account.
The challenge we have is that we know we cannot police economic crime without such transparency, but that old advice to journalists to follow the money in pursuit of the truth is becoming almost impossible because our courts—English courts, London courts, which were sanctuaries for justice for 1,000 years—are becoming the strike point of choice for oligarchs around the world to intimidate, to cow and to deter journalists from publishing the truth with the threat of sky-high legal costs. My friend the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is not in his place, and I, together with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), have been pushing this argument for almost a year. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight presented to the House a first-class private Member’s Bill, which I was proud to sign. I commend the Minister for the work that he did when he was Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee on ensuring that the cancer of strategic legal action against public participants is something that we know about and are collectively determined to act on.
Within the sub judice rules and exemptions that govern the debate, I can talk about some of the evidence that we now have on the record. There are now so many cases that it has become clear that there is a playbook for oligarchs. It is a playbook that all of them know and all of them follow. It is a playbook that is now predictable, and it is a playbook that we must draw to a close. We could draw it to a close this afternoon by agreeing to the amendments that we have tabled with cross-party support.
The first step in the playbook is to target the individual. Do not target the company, because companies are strong and individuals are weak. That is exactly why Arron Banks went for Carole Cadwalladr. He did not want to go for The Guardian or the Scott Trust; he wanted to go for an individual journalist. That is exactly why Prigozhin, as we now learn, decided to target Eliot Higgins and not Bellingcat, because of course an individual  is always more vulnerable than a corporate organisation. In most of these cases, we see an oligarch taking aim fair and square at an individual and not the corporate organisation behind them to maximise the power of intimidation.
Secondly, having identified the individual, the task is to maximise the intimidation. Let us look at what Tom Burgis had to go through when he was writing his book about the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation. The bad guys whom he was trying to expose actually went to the lengths of tapping his phone and bugging him. They must have done—that was the only way in which their investigators could turn up to a secret meeting that he was having with former Government officials in a car park. Those are the lengths that these people will go to.
Thirdly, there is the business of exaggerating the claims: taking some aside in a bit of written material and exaggerating it ridiculously to try to multiply legal costs. We saw that in particular with Mr Abramovich in his case against Catherine Belton and HarperCollins. It was a ridiculously exaggerated claim. Of course, the objective for Mr Abramovich was not to win his case. All he sought to do was maximise the legal costs for HarperCollins and Catherine Belton.
We see that now in a case in the Royal Courts of Justice, which I will not name but which I sat through a couple of weeks ago. That case is so thin. It entails an oligarch basically trying to claim that a number of emails that have been sent are in effect tantamount to a publication. Even though he is unable to name and specify the harm that has been done, he is seeking to bring a case for defamation. It is the flimsiest of cases anyone could imagine, yet hundreds of thousands of pounds have now been racked up in legal costs in an attempt to intimidate someone out of telling the truth.
Step four is to co-ordinate with others, which we saw in particular with Mr Abramovich, who decided to round up a number of his old mates to try to bring some kind of collective action—not just in this country, by the way, but in other countries such as Australia. That was a way to double the legal costs and maximise the pain against Catherine Belton and HarperCollins.
Then we have the attempts to rack up costs even though the grounds may be as flimsy as anything. Forensic News, for example, is being sued by Walter Soriano. Forensic News has a total of 12 subscribers in this country, yet Walter Soriano has been allowed to prosecute the case because of those 12 subscribers. Why could he possibly be doing that? Is it, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden described, because our legal costs are so high that the pain can be maximised by bringing a case here?
We see the same in the case referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) of the former rulers of Kazakhstan, who have brought a SLAPPs case against the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and openDemocracy. That was because openDemocracy had the temerity to expose the $8 billion siphoned off through Jusan Technologies, which is somehow now claiming that its economic interests in the UK have been damaged and therefore it is entitled to bring a case in the Royal Courts of Justice. As a result, openDemocracy and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism are forking out thousands of pounds to defend themselves against this onslaught.
The situation we now have in this country is so appalling that, as we heard in the urgent question this afternoon, we have the spectacle of a Russian warlord being licensed by His Majesty’s Treasury to fly his lawyers to London to polish a case to sue an English journalist in an English court in order to undermine the sanctions this country has imposed on him. That is how ridiculous, corroded and broken our system has become. An exemption was licensed by a servant of the Crown to spend thousands of pounds flying lawyers to service the needs of the head of the Wagner Group in St Petersburg and to refine a lawfare case in an English court.

Layla Moran: The right hon. Member is making his point powerfully. Does he not agree that they are laughing at us, surely? We impose sanctions, yet this still happens. We are talking about the head of the Wagner Group—a group that is operational in many countries across the world. Are we seriously meant to believe that he had no access to money in any other jurisdiction anywhere else in the world—that he had to access his British pounds in order to instruct lawyers to do exactly as the right hon. Member has described? The whole thing is farcical, is it not?

Liam Byrne: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Here we are, licensing a warlord to draw down funds and move them into the NatWest bank account of a London law firm to prosecute a case that undermines the sanctions we imposed on that warlord in the first place.
Let us briefly go through the timeline of the case because it is so important and illustrative of just how broken the system has become.

Clive Efford: I commend my right hon. Friend for the work he has done consistently over a long period on this issue. It is important to highlight the scale of the problem in London. Is it not true that there are more SLAPP cases being taken in the London courts than there are in Europe and America put together? Does that not illustrate the scale of the problem and the urgency with which we need to deal with it?

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I said earlier that London is now the preferred strike point for oligarchs in intimidating journalists. When the Foreign Policy Centre, whose work I must commend, surveyed investigative journalists, it found that three quarters of them had suffered some kind of legal attack to silence them. The UK legal system accounted for more of those legal actions than the United States and Europe put together. That is how bad this has now become. That is how rotten our system has now become. That is why it is so outrageous that the head of the Wagner Group was given the licences. Let us be clear about this guy. This is someone who has been running mercenary operations in Sudan, Mozambique, Syria, Central African Republic, Libya and Mali—and, of course, his forces have now been redeployed to the theatres in Ukraine.
It was in August 2020 that Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat began running a series of stories that exposed the barbarities of the Wagner Group in Africa, including offences such as the murder of CNN journalists. It took the British Government and the Foreign Office until   31 December 2020 to put sanctions on Prigozhin, even though, by the way, he had been sanctioned much earlier in the Unites States for the quiet sin of running troll farms intervening in the American presidential campaign. None the less, we got around to it at the back end of 2020. In the citation for sanctions, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office wrote that Prigozhin was providing
“a deniable military capability for the Russian state”.
That feels quite a big sin to me, running a deniable military capability for the Russian state. That sounds like a pretty good reason for sanctions. That sounds like a pretty good reason for not offering carve-outs to sanctions to undermine them in British courts.
When Mr Prigozhin found out about the sanctions he was not very happy, so he sought to undermine them by suing Bellingcat, or Eliot Higgins in an English court. He had a choice and in fact a debate: “Do we do it in a Russian court, a Dutch court or an English court?” The conclusion was to go for Eliot Higgins in an English court. To prosecute the case, he had to fly the lawyers out to St Petersburg, so the Treasury licensed £4,788.04 to help make that happen: over £3,500 for business class flights, £320 for accommodation at the Grand Hotel Europe Belmond, £150 for subsistence—that’ll buy a pretty good dinner—£200 for PCR testing and £400 for express visas. That is what servants of the Crown, under the supervision of Ministers of the Crown, signed off.
The discussions went a bit like this. “What are the objectives here, Mr Prigozhin? Well, we think that, rather than seeking damages, what we really need is to get Mr Higgins for defamation because that is how we undermine all those irritating articles” that led to the sanctions against Mr Prigozhin. Literally, we enabled the enablers. We enabled the cash flow of a Russian warlord to prosecute an English journalist in an English court. And that is why we have to act. No one in this House today thinks that this is okay. The Minister for Security does not think that it is okay. All of us here think it has to stop, but if it is to stop, we have to take aim at the original sin: the fact that it is courts in this country that are being used by oligarchs around the world to silence journalists.
Our new clause, which has drawn cross-party support today, is very simple. It would not stop all strategic legal actions against public participants, but it would stop anybody attempting to silence journalists who are trying to reveal economic crimes. It is within scope; I am grateful to the Clerks for their work helping to refine it and make it good. I know that the Minister will say, as he said in Committee, that this is not the right Bill for it, or that it would not solve all the problems, but that is an argument for making the perfect the enemy of the good.
We have heard the Lord Chancellor talking about his ambition to change the law, but we have also heard that he seeks to do so through the Bill of Rights. The dogs in the street know that the Bill of Rights Bill is dead. It is not coming back to this House any time soon, yet today—this week, next week, next month—journalists and indeed ex-Members of this House are in court, having to pay legal bills because we allow oligarchs to abuse our courts. Let us at least make progress now.
I say to the Minister: please do not be the Minister for mañana. Please be the Minister who did not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Please be the Minister  who seeks to do what he can with what we have, where we are, today. We could use this Bill to make progress. Why do we not seize that opportunity with both hands?
I am very grateful for the concerted campaign by Members across this House. I will end by saluting the courage, fortitude and determination of so many good journalists in this country. Oliver Bullough, who wrote the brilliant books “Moneyland” and “Butler to the World”, makes an excellent argument in his openDemocracy article today. He says that journalists going into the business of tackling economic crime have an uphill struggle as it is, with a lot of barriers in their way. They have a pretty difficult job, and the knowledge that the British Government are on the side of the bad guys does not make that job any easier. It is time that we put the force of the state and the force of the Crown behind the good guys for once—and that means agreeing to our new clause today.

Marie Rimmer: It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). I applaud his commitment and thoroughness in the work that he has done.
I rise to support new clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 21. Economic crime is usually committed in the shadows, yet its impact is as clear as day: there are the American candy stores down Oxford Street, there are thousands of empty flats in London and—closer to my home—in Liverpool and Manchester, and we know how dirty money laundered here has financed the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The crimes that the Bill aims to prevent are so often shrouded in secrecy. The Bill is necessary, as we can all agree, but the Government need to do it right. They need to accommodate sensible amendments—notably those investigated and researched by groups such as the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) has led tirelessly. Indeed, the Minister—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—co-signed the manifesto on which many of today’s amendments are based, so I would expect him to support them. I urge him to do so.
New clauses 1 and 2 are crucial to getting a grip on the London laundromat. Journalists are the fourth estate in our society. They investigate and shed light on the secrecy that surrounds economic crime, yet only this week it was reported that journalist Eliot Higgins was hounded by a British law firm that was given permission by the Government to work on behalf of the murderous and barbaric Wagner Group. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill has clearly outlined what has come out today and what he has been researching.
Wealthy oligarchs cannot be allowed to use English courts to threaten journalists with huge legal costs. If these wealthy individuals are able to abuse their wealth and power, no light will be shed on the secret world of economic crime.
New clauses 4 to 6 aim to introduce a corporate offence of failing to prevent economic crime. They are critical to removing the veil of secrecy. Fraud, false accounting, money laundering, bribery and tax evasion are witnessed by finance directors, accountants and chief executives.  Whether they are willing participants, trying to keep quiet or, crucially, failing to take action, it must be a crime. Ignorance or neglect cannot be a defence, but it is not only senior management who should be held responsible. If senior management were involved, or knew and did nothing, the corporation must be liable. After all, a business is the people who work for it. Corporations are not faceless bodies. Putting the responsibility on the individual and the corporation will help to create a culture of transparency, which is one of the core purposes of the Bill—to bring economic crime out of the shadows.
New clause 7 covers whistleblowers, possibly the most important issue of all. As I have said, the best way to prevent economic crime is by removing the veil of secrecy. Whistleblowers provide the sunlight to do just that. Economic crime is not committed by faceless organisations, it is committed by people. If the Government introduce the protections for whistleblowers outlined in new clause 7, they will help law enforcement to do its job. Having laws in place to prosecute economic crime will do little unless whistleblowers can alert law enforcement agencies, but it is important to remember that whistleblowers are people and they have families and livelihoods to protect. Far too many lives have been shattered by a failure to protect whistleblowers. If the Government want to remove the veil of secrecy surrounding economic crime, protecting whistleblowers simply must be part of the strategy.
The past year has put a spotlight on the work that my right hon. Friends the Members for Barking and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) and many others have done to put a spotlight on economic crime. Russia’s actions towards Ukraine have brought about the political will and urgency to get this Bill passed. The oligarchs, dictators and their supporters have had their money here for decades. The Bill needs to make sure that Britain is not a safe haven for economic crime. The veil of secrecy must be lifted and it must never return. It is not who we are. Britain should be playing no part in propping up their regimes.
I urge the Government to use the good will they have on this Bill and to support the new clauses I have mentioned. They should not waste this opportunity. The new clauses are bipartisan and based on evidence and politics. It is sickening and heartrending to see what is going on in Great Britain, America, China and Russia. Around the world, people are asking, “What is going on? What are politicians doing?” Many of us are ashamed and cannot hold our heads high. I urge the Government to give the public something worth having. The Bill gives us huge opportunities. I know the people on the Government Front Bench, I know where their hearts are, and I ask them to be brave, to use this opportunity to the maximum for today and tomorrow—it can be finalised in the future.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Minister.

Hon. Members:: Minister!

Thomas Tugendhat: My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. For some reason I was under the impression that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) would be speaking first.

Stephen Kinnock: No, no!

Thomas Tugendhat: Oh, are you ducking out? Very well.

Stephen Kinnock: I will be back for Third Reading.

Thomas Tugendhat: It is always a joy to hear from the hon. Gentleman.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I think I should explain, for the benefit of Hansard, that the shadow Minister will be coming back on Third Reading. It is customary to go straight to the Minister, given that he moved the motion for the lead new clause.

Thomas Tugendhat: I thought that we were to have the joy and the privilege of hearing from the hon. Member for Aberavon, who can never say too much in this Chamber, or indeed anywhere else—which is lucky, because he very rarely says too little.
It is a huge pleasure to have been here this afternoon. Members in all parts of the House have made extremely powerful points, but I will touch on just a few of them, because many have been covered at length and in detail on numerous other occasions. If Members will forgive me, I will deal straight away with a few of the matters that I think require immediate attention.
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) for tabling new clause 6 and for the way in which he has approached the area of corporate criminal liability, in which he and I agree that reform is required. That is why the Government commissioned a review by the Law Commission, which my right hon. and learned Friend cited and which showed a definite need to clamp down on economic crime conducted by commercial organisations. We have been working closely across Government and with prosecutors in carefully considering its recommendations and how improvements can best be made. It is vital that any reform can be used by law enforcement agencies, does not duplicate what already exists and avoids placing unnecessary burdens on legitimate businesses, but we must also operate within the constraints of the Bill.
I share my right hon. and learned Friend’s passion for change. I am immensely grateful for his thoughtful input, and I greatly value my engagement with him, and with other Members, on this issue. I can assure him that the Government intend to address the need for a “failure to prevent” offence in the other place, and I would welcome further discussion with him about the most effective way in which that can be done.

Robert Buckland: I am extremely grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said, but may I gently press him on the issues of “failure to prevent”, fraud, money laundering and false accounting offences—I accept that they may well have to be separate—and a further discussion on the identification doctrine? If so, I will not need to press my new clauses to a vote.

Thomas Tugendhat: My right hon. and learned Friend is certainly more learned than me, and I will certainly be listening to his views. There are a number of areas that I am sure we will be able to discuss, and I am sure we will reach a conclusion that is acceptable to all sides.

Margaret Hodge: I am grateful for the assurance that an amendment will be introduced in another place, but may I also have an assurance that it will cover both corporations and individual directors?

Thomas Tugendhat: The right hon. Lady knows very well that I would find it impossible not to listen to her. I look forward to seeing how we can return to this issue. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), will no doubt wish to have a strong input as well, so I shall say no more at this stage.
Let me now touch on the question of whistleblowers, and pay enormous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), who has been a friend of many of us for a number of years since she was first elected and who has championed, consistently and clearly, the need for an office for whistleblowers. She is absolutely right: what the country needs is an office for whistleblowers, and what we need to do is ensure that we have the updates to the legislation that she so correctly highlighted. The establishment of such an office would, however, be a significant undertaking. It would have major financial applications owing to its size, it would require significant staffing, and, as matters stand, it might duplicate the role of regulators without the same level of sector expertise. I know that my hon. Friend had the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State earlier this week to discuss her new clause and plans for the review, which I understand will be set out soon, I hope that the meeting was constructive.

Mary Robinson: I have indeed had a meeting with the Under-Secretary to discuss this. There is a long way to go on it and I am steadfast about setting up the office for whistleblowers. However, the conversations have been constructive, I am grateful to Ministers and I will not be pressing my new clause to a vote.

Thomas Tugendhat: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that and to the Under-Secretary for having had those conversations. He knows my support for her interest in this important matter.
Clearly, many amendments have been tabled today. The last point I wish to make before we move on to Third Reading is that the Government listened an awful lot on this Bill. Many of us, including myself and the Under-Secretary, who have been taking it through this place, have been listening extremely carefully, for many reasons. One of those reasons is that we picked this up, as many people do, a long way down its process of drafting and through its progress through this House. No doubt there are areas where all of us could tweak, adjust, test and push, but we think that the Bill offers major progress on the situation where we began; I am delighted that that point was shared across this House. So although there are areas where we could have further discussion—I am sure the other place will have criticisms and comment, and we will have improvements and additions—we feel that this Bill, as it stands, is a vast improvement on where we are. Although there is progress to be made, and there always will be, we believe that the Bill marks a useful point of progress for our country in fighting economic crime.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 14 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3 - Home Office review of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa scheme: publication

“Home Office review of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa scheme: publication
Within a day of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish in full the findings of the Home Office review of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa scheme which relate to economic crime.” —(Layla Moran.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 290.
Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 26 - Beneficial owners in overseas territories

‘(1) The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 51, after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State must ensure that the Order in Council under subsection (2) above comes into effect on date no later than 30 June 2023.”’—(Stephen Kinnock.)
This new clause would amend the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to ensure that an Order in Council requiring open registers of beneficial ownership in the British Overseas Territories comes into force no later than 30 June 2023.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 289.
Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 27 - Compensation for Victims of Economic Crime

“(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than 90 days from the date on which this Act comes into force, publish and lay before Parliament a strategy for the potential establishment of a fund for the compensation of victims of economic crime.
(2) The strategy may include provisions on the management and disposal of any assets realised by the government, or any body with law enforcement responsibilities in relation to economic crime, under relevant UK legislation.”—(Stephen Kinnock.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy on the potential establishment of a fund to provide compensation to victims of economic crime.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 289.
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 171 - Information orders: money laundering

Amendments made: 44,page152, leave out lines 20 to 29 and insert—
“(a) a request has been made by a foreign FIU to the National Crime Agency for the provision of the information required to be given under the order,
(b) the National Crime Agency has reasonable grounds to believe that the information would assist the foreign FIU to conduct—
(i) operational analysis of information that is relevant to money laundering or suspected money laundering, or
(ii) strategic analysis identifying trends or patterns in the conduct of money laundering, or systematic deficiencies or vulnerabilities which have been, are being or are likely to be, exploited for the purposes of money laundering,
and that the information is likely to be of substantial value to the foreign FIU in carrying out such analysis,
(ba) the provision of the information by the National Crime Agency to the foreign FIU would be for the purposes of the criminal intelligence function of the National Crime Agency, so far as it relates to money laundering,”.
This amendment modifies the conditions that have to be met before an information order can be granted by a court to provide information to the National Crime Agency in a case where a request for the information has been made by a foreign financial intelligence unit.
Amendment 45, page 152, leave out lines 32 to 34.—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 44.

Clause 172 - Information orders: terrorist financing

Amendments made: 46,page155, leave out lines 29 to 38 and insert—
“(a) a request has been made by a foreign FIU to the National Crime Agency for the provision of the information required to be given under the order,
(b) the National Crime Agency has reasonable grounds to believe that the information would assist the foreign FIU to conduct—
(i) operational analysis of information that is relevant to terrorist financing or suspected terrorist financing, or
(ii) strategic analysis identifying trends or patterns in the conduct of terrorist financing, or systematic deficiencies or vulnerabilities which have been, are being or are likely to be, exploited for the purposes of terrorist financing,
and that the information is likely to be of substantial value to the foreign FIU in carrying out such analysis,
(ba) the provision of the information by the National Crime Agency to the foreign FIU would be for the purposes of the criminal intelligence function of the National Crime Agency, so far as it relates to terrorist financing,”.
This amendment modifies the conditions that have to be met before an information order can be granted by a court to provide information to the National Crime Agency in a case where a request for the information has been made by a foreign financial intelligence unit.
Amendment 47, page 155, leave out lines 41 to 43.—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 46.

Clause 175 - Indirect disclosure of information: restrictions on civil liability

Amendments made: 48,page160,line12, leave out “1(1)(l) or” and insert “1(1)(j) to”.
The amendment extends the categories of business in the regulated sector in relation to which clause 175 applies, to include business in the audit, insolvency and tax sectors.
Amendment 49,page160,line13, leave out “accountancy” and insert
“audit, insolvency, accountancy, tax”.—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 48.

Clause 188 - Commencement

Amendments made: 50,page169,line4, at end insert—
“(1A) Section (Reports on the implementation and operation of Parts 1 to 3) comes into force at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment provides for NC15 to come into force 2 months after royal assent.
Amendment 57,page169,line7, at end insert—
“(2A) The following come into force on the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 so far as it inserts section 303Z25 into the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and
(b) section 167 so far as it relates to that paragraph.”
This amendment provides for inserted section 303Z25 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (requirement to prepare codes of practice in relation to powers to search for cryptoasset-related items) to come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
Amendment 51,page169,line8, after “subsection” insert “(1A) or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 50.
Amendment 58,page169,line8, after “(2)” insert “or (2A)”.—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 57.

Schedule 6 - Cryptoassets: confiscation orders

Amendments made: 59,page201,line39, leave out “sheriff” and insert “relevant court”.
This amendment and Amendments 60 and 61 amend inserted section 131ZB of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (realisation of confiscated cryptoassets) to provide that (as well as the sheriff) the High Court of Justiciary and the Sheriff Appeal Court may make an order under that section requiring confiscated cryptoassets to be realised.
Amendment 60,page202,line11, leave out “sheriff of the sheriff’s” and insert “relevant court of its”.
See Amendment 59.
Amendment 61,page202,line19, at end insert—
“(7) In this section ‘relevant court’ means—
(a) the court which makes the confiscation order, or
(b) the sheriff court responsible for enforcing the confiscation order under section 211 of the Procedure Act as applied by section 118(1).”
See Amendment 59.
Amendment 62,page203,line24, leave out “sheriff” and insert “relevant court”.
This amendment and Amendments 63, 64, 65 and 66 amend inserted section 131AA of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (destruction of seized cryptoassets) to provide that (as well as the sheriff) the High Court of Justiciary and the Sheriff Appeal Court may make an order under that section requiring seized cryptoassets to be destroyed.
Amendment 63,page203,line41, leave out “sheriff of the sheriff’s” and insert “relevant court of its”.
See Amendment 62.
Amendment 64, page 203, line 43, leave out “sheriff’s” and insert “relevant court’s”.
See Amendment 62.
Amendment 65,page204,line3, leave out “sheriff” and insert “relevant court”.
See Amendment 62.
Amendment 66,page204,line12, at end insert—
“(8) In this section ‘relevant court’ means—
(a) the court which makes the confiscation order mentioned in subsection (2)(a), or
(b) the sheriff court responsible for enforcing that confiscation order under section 211 of the Procedure Act as applied by section 118(1).”
See Amendment 62.
Amendment 67,page204,line14, leave out “131ZB(3), 131A(3) or 131AA(2)” and insert “131A(3)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 68.
Amendment 68,page204,line14, at end insert—
“(1A) After subsection (1) insert—
‘(2A) If the relevant court decides not to make an order under section 131ZB(3) or 131AA(2), the prosecutor may appeal to the Court of Session.’”
This amendment amends section 131C of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (appeals under sections 131A and 131B) to make provision for prosecutors to appeal to the Court of Session against a decision of the relevant court not to make an order under section 131ZB or 131AA of that Act.
Amendment 69,page204,line15, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
“(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
‘(2) If—
(a) a sheriff makes an order under section 131A(3), or
(b) the relevant court makes an order under section 131ZB(3) or 131AA(2),
a person affected by the order may appeal to the Court of Session.’”
This amendment amends section 131C of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (appeals under sections 131A and 131B) to make provision for a person affected by an order made under section 131A, 131ZB or 131AA of that Act to appeal to the Court of Session.
Amendment 70,page204,line17, at end insert—
“(4A) After subsection (7) insert—
‘(8) In this section “relevant court”—
(a) in relation to a decision or order made under section 131ZB, has the same meaning as in that section, and
(b) in relation to a decision or order made under section 131AA, has the same meaning as in that section.’”
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 68 and 69.
Amendment 71,page204,line32, leave out “the sheriff” and insert “a court”.—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 62.

Schedule 7 - Cryptoassets: civil recovery

Amendments made: 72,page218,line25, at end insert—
“(2) A requirement in section 303G(2), 303H(2) or 303I(2), as applied by subsection (1), to carry out a relevant action may be satisfied by the carrying out of that action before this section comes into force.
(3) In subsection (2) ‘relevant action’ means any of the following—
(a) publishing a draft code of practice;
(b) considering any representations made about the draft;
(c) modifying the draft in light of any such representations.
(4) The requirement in section 303G(3), as applied by subsection (1), to consult the Attorney General may be satisfied by consultation carried out before this section comes into force.”
This amendment amends inserted section 303Z25 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (cryptoassets: codes of practice) to provide that certain preliminary steps in relation to the making of a code of practice under that section (for example, consulting on a draft code of practice) may be carried out before that section comes into force.
Amendment 73,page220,line36, at end insert—
“(c) by the Scottish Ministers in connection with their functions under this Part, to an authority exercising equivalent functions in a foreign country, or
(d) by a person under section 375A or 408A (evidence overseas).”
This amendment and Amendments 74, 75, 79 and 80 provide that a “request for assistance” in inserted Chapters 3C to 3F of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (cryptoassets: civil recovery) includes a request made by the Scottish Ministers to an authority exercising equivalent functions in a foreign country or a request made under section 375A or 408A of that Act.
Amendment 74,page222,line45, at end insert—
“(c) by the Scottish Ministers in connection with their functions under this Part, to an authority exercising equivalent functions in a foreign country, or
(d) by a person under section 375A or 408A (evidence overseas).”
See Amendment 73.
Amendment 75,page227,line17, at end insert—
“(c) by the Scottish Ministers in connection with their functions under this Part, to an authority exercising equivalent functions in a foreign country, or
(d) by a person under section 375A or 408A (evidence overseas).”
See Amendment 73.
Amendment 76,page229,line6, leave out from “detained” to “or” in line 7 and insert “under Chapter 3C”.
This amendment provides that cryptoassets detained under any provision of Chapter 3C of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (forfeiture of cryptoassets) (including under section 303Z31 of that Act) are subject to forfeiture under section 303Z41 of that Act.
Amendment 77,page230,line20, leave out from “detained” to end of line 21 and insert “under Chapter 3C”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76.
Amendment 78,page230,line22, leave out
“in pursuance of the order”
and insert “under Chapter 3C”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76.
Amendment 79,page246,line18, at end insert—
“(c) by the Scottish Ministers in connection with their functions under this Part, to an authority exercising equivalent functions in a foreign country, or
(d) by a person under section 375A or 408A (evidence overseas).”
See Amendment 73.
Amendment 80,page247,line18, at end insert—
“(c) by the Scottish Ministers in connection with their functions under this Part, to an authority exercising equivalent functions in a foreign country, or
(d) by a person under section 375A or 408A (evidence overseas).”
See Amendment 73.
Amendment 81,page254,line41, after “303Z30” insert “, 303Z31”.
This amendment and Amendments 82, 83, 84, 85 and 86 provide that where cryptoassets are detained under section 303Z31 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (seizure of cryptoassets) or paragraph 10Z7AF of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (seizure of terrorist cryptoassets) and are subject to an application for forfeiture, those cryptoassets are not “free property” for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Amendment 82,page255,line2, after “10Z7AE” insert “, 10Z7AF”.
See Amendment 81.
Amendment 83,page255,line26, after “303Z30” insert “, 303Z31”.
See Amendment 81.
Amendment 84,page255,line32, after “10Z7AE” insert “, 10Z7AF”.
See Amendment 81.
Amendment 85,page256,line8, after “303Z30” insert “, 303Z31”.
See Amendment 81.
Amendment 86,page256,line14, after “10Z7AE” insert “, 10Z7AF”.
See Amendment 81.
Amendment 87,page258,line12, at end insert—
“(5A) After section 311 insert—
‘Chapters 3C to 3F: supplementary
311A Financial investigators
(1) This section applies where an accredited financial investigator of a particular description—
(a) applies for an order under section 303Z28, 303Z32, 303Z57 or 303Z58 (further detention of cryptoassets etc),
(b) applies for forfeiture under section 303Z41 or 303Z60 (forfeiture of cryptoassets etc), or
(c) brings an appeal under, or relating to, Chapter 3E or 3F (cryptoassets etc).
(2) Any subsequent step in the application or appeal, or any further application or appeal relating to the same matter, may be taken, made or brought by a different accredited financial investigator of the same description.’”
This amendment contains a consequential amendment to Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It inserts new section 311A, which includes provision about accredited financial investigators making certain applications or appeals in relation to Chapters 3C to 3F of that Part.
Amendment 88,page258,line13, after “Scottish Ministers)” insert
“—
(a) in paragraph (c), for “271(3) and (4)” substitute “271”, and
(b) ”.
This amendment amends section 312(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (performance of functions of Scottish Ministers by constables in Scotland) to provide that all functions of the Scottish Ministers within section 271 of that Act (agreements about associated and joint property) may not be performed by constables.
Amendment 89,page258,line16, at end insert—
“(ra) section 303Z28(5)(b) (further detention of seized cryptoasset-related items);
(rb) section 303Z32(5)(b) (further detention of seized cryptoassets);
(rc) section 303Z34(4) and (5)(b)(i) (release of cryptoassets and cryptoasset-related items);”.
This amendment and Amendments 90 and 91 consequentially amend section 312(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (performance of functions of Scottish Ministers by constables in Scotland) to provide that certain functions of the Scottish Ministers in inserted Chapters 3C to 3F of Part 5 of that Act may not be performed by constables.
Amendment 90,page258,line20, at end insert—
“(ua) section 303Z44 (agreements about associated and joint property);
(ub) section 303Z45(10) (associated and joint property: default of agreement);
(uc) section 303Z46(2) (continuation of crypto wallet freezing order pending appeal);
(ud) section 303Z47(1) (sections 303Z41 to 303Z45: appeals);”.
See Amendment 89.
Amendment 91,page258,line25, at end insert—
“(y) section 303Z61(1) (appeal against decision under section 303Z60).”
See Amendment 89.
Amendment 92,page263,line6, at end insert—
“11A In section 453B of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (certain offences in relation to SFO officers), in subsection (5), after paragraph (g) insert—
‘(ga) section 303Z21 (powers to search for cryptoasset-related items);
(gb) section 303Z26 (powers to seize cryptoasset-related items);
(gc) section 303Z27 (powers to detain cryptoasset-related items;’.” —(Tom Tugendhat.)
This amendment consequentially amends section 453B of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (certain offences in relation to SFO officers) to provide that the offences in that section apply in relation to an SFO officer who is acting in exercise of certain cryptoasset-related powers in inserted Chapter 3C of Part 5 of that Act.

Schedule 8 - Cryptoassets: terrorism

Amendments made: 93,page267,line19, at end insert—
“(c) by the Scottish Ministers in connection with their functions under this Schedule, to an authority exercising equivalent functions in a foreign country, or
(d) by a person under section 375A or 408A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (evidence overseas).”
This amendment and Amendments 94, 95, 99 and 100 provide that a “request for assistance” in inserted Parts 4BA to 4BD of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (cryptoassets: terrorism) includes a request made by the Scottish Ministers to an authority exercising equivalent functions in a foreign country or a request made under section 375A or 408A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Amendment 94,page270,line12, at end insert—
“(c) by the Scottish Ministers in connection with their functions under this Schedule, to an authority exercising equivalent functions in a foreign country, or
(d) by a person under section 375A or 408A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (evidence overseas).”
See Amendment 93.
Amendment 95,page274,line33, at end insert—
“(c) by the Scottish Ministers in connection with their functions under this Schedule, to an authority exercising equivalent functions in a foreign country, or
(d) by a person under section 375A or 408A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (evidence overseas).”
See Amendment 93.
Amendment 96,page277,line3, leave out from “detained” to “or” in line 4 and insert “under Part 4BA”.
This amendment provides that cryptoassets detained under any provision of Part 4BA of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (seizure and detention of terrorist cryptoassets) (including under paragraph 10Z7AF of that Schedule) are subject to forfeiture under paragraph 10Z7CA of that Schedule.
Amendment 97,page278, leave out line 4 and insert “under Part 4BA”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 96.
Amendment 98,page278,line5, leave out “in pursuance of the order” and insert “under Part 4BA”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 96.
Amendment 99,page295,line20, at end insert—
“(c) by the Scottish Ministers in connection with their functions under this Schedule, to an authority exercising equivalent functions in a foreign country, or
(d) by a person under section 375A or 408A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (evidence overseas).”
See Amendment 93.
Amendment 100,page296,line16, at end insert—
“(c) by the Scottish Ministers in connection with their functions under this Schedule, to an authority exercising equivalent functions in a foreign country, or
(d) by a person under section 375A or 408A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (evidence overseas).”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
See Amendment 93.
Third Reading

Thomas Tugendhat: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I will briefly thank a few people on my behalf and on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I must thank my noble friend Lord Callanan, the Minister for Business, Energy and Corporate Responsibility, who continues to do so much to support the Bill and has been a great help. I also thank the Home Office Minister, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who is a fantastic asset to our Department.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who helped so much to prepare the Bill. Furthermore, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who ably shepherded the Bill through its early parliamentary stages, and the Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), and his team for their excellent assistance, particularly when he courageously stood in and answered on behalf of the Department in a brief moment of surprise—mostly to him. I also thank the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for their contributions.

Bob Neill: I thank the Minister for his positive response to the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and others in relation to the reform of corporate criminal responsibility. That is welcome. Will he take on board  the importance of including in that the reform of the identification principle, which is a major bar to corporate prosecutions? The Justice Committee has called for that more than once in its recent reports, and it is supported by the current and previous Directors of Public Prosecutions and the current and previous Directors of the Serious Fraud Office.

Thomas Tugendhat: I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee. As he knows, this is an area of great interest and for further discussion, which we are indeed looking at taking forward.
I finish by saying an enormous thank you to the Bill team, who are in the Box today—Tom Ball and the rest of the clan—who have done a fantastic job on Burns night, of all times. Because it is a time for us to find that we are no longer wee and tim’rous beasties, but are instead going to look for that fair trojan of the human race, the “puddin’-race”—forgive me—I look forward very much to being freed of the Dispatch Box and skipping off to the whisky and the haggis. On that, Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you.

Nigel Evans: Lucky Minister. I call the shadow Minister.

Stephen Kinnock: Like the Minister, I am keen to thank colleagues who have done so much and made so many valued contributions both to this Bill throughout its progress and in the debate today. I would very much like to thank the Bill team for the excellent work they have done, as always supporting us through our work and on many occasions helping to shed light where there was more or less total confusion, so we really appreciate that. I also thank our own staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and I are very fortunate to have wonderful teams supporting us—particularly colleagues such as Joe Bishop, Danny Hathaway and Joe Jervis—who have done so much in our teams to help us to get to this point.
It is worth just casting our minds back to October, when the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and stated that he wanted a Government of “integrity, accountability and professionalism”. Well, we are almost 100 days into his tenure, so we are bound to take stock of how that is going, and I think it is fair to say that progress has been somewhat mixed. His Home Secretary has committed multiple breaches of the ministerial code, his chairman has just been exposed for tax avoidance on a massive scale and his claims—

Nigel Evans: Order. Mr Kinnock, you are going really wide of the mark on Third Reading. Please could you focus on the Bill that is having its Third Reading?

Stephen Kinnock: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just about to make the point that the Home Secretary has talked of learning the lessons from the golden visas issue, but she still has not published the full report. Of course, we have seen many oligarchs getting those visas since the invasion of Crimea, so I would contend that that is directly relevant to the debate we are having today.
That is the key point. It is about striving for integrity, professionalism and accountability. Of course the Bill offers an outstanding opportunity to deliver the change we all want to see. As we have said on many occasions, it is a step in the right direction and we are supporting it on Third Reading, but of course it still does not go far enough on SLAPPs, golden visas, information sharing, corporate transparency, corporate criminal liability, compensating victims or, indeed, structures for enforcement.
That final point is critical. We can have all the laws we want, but if we do not enforce them—whether we are talking about economic crime or anything else—they are pointless. These were points that Bill Browder made forcefully during the evidence that he gave to our Committee and, on cryptocurrency, that the expert Aidan Larkin made in a recent meeting with me. So we need to ensure that the agencies and institutions that should be fighting the illicit finance we all want to combat are given the resources they need, and are given the political support and licence to operate they have to have if they are going to be able to deliver on what we want them to deliver.
In conclusion, the fact is that we have left the back door open and allowed our country to become a kind of fixer for the world’s dictators, kleptocrats and gangsters. We cannot go around the world preaching about the rule of law and transparency until we get our own house in order. We should not have to wait for the next “Panama Papers” or the illegal invasion of another country to force us into taking action. I said at the outset of the debate that the Opposition have approached this Bill in a spirit of constructive engagement. That has not changed and it will not change. However, we have not so far seen from Ministers sufficient openness to input from Opposition Members, or even from many of their own Back Benchers, but we welcome the remarks that the Minister made in his winding-up speech. We look forward to the progress that we wish to see being made in the other place as rapidly as possible. It is not too late, there is still time, and I genuinely hope that the remaining stages of the Bill will see the gaps filled, the loopholes closed, and the opportunities seized.

Alison Thewliss: I thank everybody who has contributed to the Bill. It has been a cross-party and worthwhile effort, and everybody who has been part of it has felt that. I hope the Government do their bit and take that cross-party effort in the spirit in which we meant it. We want to improve the Bill and for it to do everything it can do right now, rather than waiting for some distant point in the future when we come back and say, “We’ve still got these problems and this Bill, which could have addressed them, has not.” We have been there before. We had the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, and other Bills while I have been in this House could have addressed or fixed these problems, yet we are here again today still not fixing all the problems. Who knows when parliamentary time will allow us to pass this way again.
I thank the experts who have given so much evidence to us individually and as parliamentarians in Committee and other places. In particular I thank Helena Wood of the Royal United Services Institute, Duncan Hames of Transparency International, Bill Browder, Oliver Bullough and Graham Barrow, the expert on Companies House. He has had his own health issues but has continued to campaign on Companies House. We wish him well and a speedy recovery, and all the best with his treatment.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). He came on board with this Bill and was very supportive and helpful throughout its passage, raising the issue of phoenixing, which is of concern to many of our constituents. I encourage the Government to look at how they can fix phoenixing, and ensure that our constituents and companies based in our constituencies do not fall victim to companies that seek to abuse the system in such a way. I give great thanks to the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) who has been such a tremendous champion for all these issues over a long period. Her expertise, her contribution, and the way that she convenes people within this place has been incredibly important for this agenda, and I cannot thank her enough for that work.
I thank the Clerks and the Bill team for all they have done to help support us throughout the passage of the Bill. Putting together all the amendments is not easy, and under pressures of time they have been incredibly helpful in putting them together for us. I also thank Mhairi Love in my own office, and Sarah Callaghan in the SNP research office. Again, they have been incredibly helpful in putting together research on all these areas, and putting up with me when I go down a big rabbit hole of all the things about economic crime that live in my head most of the time. They have been very helpful indeed over the course of things.
I want to make an announcement, Mr Deputy Speaker, before everybody departs—[Interruption.] I am not going to the Government Benches; the Minister is welcome over here any time. I am not sure that his constituents would expect him to be an SNP Member, but any time he feels the need that is fine. As it is Burns Night, there is haggis in the canteen, and I encourage everybody to partake and get their honest, sonsie faces over to the canteen before it goes. I am looking forward to mine. Not related in any way to the Bill, the Ayrshire Fiddlers—not that kind of fiddlers—are in Strangers Bar, and Members should go and see them because they are very good indeed. Crucially for this Bill they are playing the fiddle and they are not on the fiddle, so please go and give them your support.
I finish with some lines from our national bard:
“O, wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion.”
I ask Ministers to reflect on how others will see the Bill and make amendments to it in the other place to make it befitting of the commitment that we all have to seeing economic crime removed.

Nigel Evans: Happy Burns Night, everyone.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Bereavement Benefits (Remedial) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 13 October 2022, be approved.—(Joy Morrissey.)
[Relevant Documents: Eighth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Draft Bereavement Benefits (Remedial) Order 2022: Second Report, HC 834]
Question agreed to.

Petition - North Northamptonshire Unitary Council’s Care Provider Services Strategy

Peter Bone: I rise to present a petition, the lead petitioner being Mr Aran Whiting. It is a rather unusual petition in that it supports what North Northamptonshire Council is doing and does not want any change. The easiest way to explain the petition will be to read it. It states:
The humble petition of the residents of Da Vinci Court, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire,
Sheweth,
That the petitioners believe that the care needs of Da Vinci Court residents have not been adequately considered in North Northamptonshire Unitary Council’s Care Provider Services Strategy and that these needs cannot be adequately met by agency staff due to a lack of continuity and stability for service users,
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to work with North Northamptonshire Unitary Council to consider the concerns of the petitioners and ensure that measures are implemented to protect the quality of care the residents of Da Vinci Court receive.
And your petitioners, as duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P002790]

Petition - Pre-payment Meter Energy Customers and Higher Costs

Anne McLaughlin: The usual laws of commerce and capitalism are that buy first, pay later costs more and that those who can pay in   advance will get a discount. The direct opposite is true for people on prepayment meters. Nearly 67,000 people in Glasgow alone are paying more than I am for their gas and electricity, and in daily standing charges. I object to that because I and other people on higher incomes not only get to pay in arrears and have the comfort of a guaranteed supply of energy, but, somehow, get to pay less. I also object because the vast majority of people on prepayment meters are on them because they have had some financial challenges. They should be helped, not punished.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that prepayment meter energy customers do not pay more than standard credit or direct debit energy customers.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that 4.5 million pre-payment energy customers, who are some of the most vulnerable in society and are more likely to be classed as fuel poor, pay more for their energy than standard credit or direct debit customers; notes that prepayment meter customers will pay, on average, an additional 20p per day in standing charges alone; notes that regional variations in standing charges for prepayment meter customers can see customers in the North of Scotland paying 17.82p per day more than those in London, notes the surge in forced prepayment meter installations and reports that some 3.2 million prepayment meter customers were disconnected from their supply as they ran out of credit, more in 2022 than in the last 10 years combined; recognises the perverse injustice that the poorest and most vulnerable in our society pay more for their energy, and that for many they have no choice in how they pay for their energy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that prepayment meter energy customers do not pay more than standard credit or direct debit energy customers.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002796]

Britishvolt

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Joy Morrissey.)

Ian Lavery: On a point of clarification at the outset, it is important that the media and everyone else involved recognise that the Britishvolt site is in the East Bedlington parish of my constituency of Wansbeck, contrary to most media reports.
The rise and fall of Britishvolt and its dream to build a gigafactory in Cambois, in Wansbeck, is an incredibly important story not only of how the Government have once again failed people in the north-east, but of how the wider lack of an industrial strategy, in particular regarding the automotive industry, is putting thousands of jobs at risk and making the creation of high-quality manufacturing jobs—like the ones promised by Britishvolt —nothing but a pipe dream.
Due to its proximity to the old Blyth power station and the local deep sea port, the fact that it is fully plugged into the national grid, with a potential supply of green hydroelectric power from Norway at a competitive price, and its fantastic transport links and planning permission, Cambois is the most attractive and desirable site in the country, if not in Europe, for a gigaplant—those are not my words, but those of many industry experts.
However, the biggest asset is the people of our great region, who once again feel terribly let down by the situation that has been allowed to develop with Britishvolt.

Jon Trickett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a great champion for his constituency, working people and the north of England. Has he seen the reports today saying that if the north of England were a country, it would be more or less the worst in the whole OECD for investment by the public or private sector? Have we in the north not been let down enough, and particularly those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, who were led up the garden path, by the looks of it, on a promise that will now not be delivered?

Ian Lavery: My hon. Friend makes a number of important points. It is correct to state that people in the north have been let down greatly as a result of this Government’s policies. Many people in our constituencies have been let down greatly, and some are even saying they have been left behind.

Kate Osborne: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the House. Cambois is in the constituency of Wansbeck, not Blyth, as some seem to think. What we are discussing will impact not just Northumberland and Wansbeck but the wider north-east, including my constituents in Jarrow. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government want the people of the north-east to believe that levelling up is not just empty rhetoric, they need to deliver not just in more affluent areas, but in places such as the north-east, where we have seen very little—certainly in my constituency, and I believe the same goes for my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Ian Lavery: The reality is that the development of this Britishvolt plant would have transformed lives and communities not just in the south-east of Northumberland, in places such as Blyth, Wansbeck and Bedlington,  but—my hon. Friend is right—in the likes of Jarrow and farther afield in Sunderland, North Tyneside and the entire region. It was to be the biggest investment in our region since Nissan in the ’70s.

Sharon Hodgson: My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. Does he agree that despite the clear failure of the Government’s UK industrial strategy, they should continue to try to attract investors to support a battery gigafactory in his constituency by establishing a localised supply chain across the north-east? That would in turn support automotive giants, such as Nissan, which he mentioned, that are already investing in electric vehicles. We know that that is vital for EU trade and the drive toward zero-emissions vehicles by 2030.

Ian Lavery: Thanks for that intervention. The supply chain is so, so important. Britishvolt suggested at the time that there would be 3,000 jobs created at the site and 5,000 jobs created in the supply chain. That would have been felt throughout the whole of our region in the north-east and probably further afield.
Links with Nissan would be brilliant. We need to take a leaf out of Nissan’s book in the way it has operated in the north-east for so many years. We were hoping to see some sort of link. Nissan is looking towards an on-site gigafactory with Envision AESC, which is in progress as we speak.

Mary Glindon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government seem to have forgotten and neglected the area north of Teesside? This great part of our region, whether it is Tyneside, Northumberland or Wearside, always seems to be forgotten. We were forgotten when it came to a freeport, levelling up and now Britishvolt, which, as my hon. Friend says, would have created jobs across the region and given it a brighter future.

Ian Lavery: That is very, very well put. People in our region are very much aware that there has been investment in Teesside. I welcome every penny coming into the region, by the way—every single ha’penny of investment we can get—but it has to be further afield than just one particular pocket of the north-east region. As my hon. Friend says, there has been a complete lack of investment in our region and it has been left behind for decades now. That is just not acceptable any more. This is the idea that could have transformed and changed that for a lot of the people we proudly represent. People were excited by the thought they actually had the potential to get a decent job with good wages, terms and conditions.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. He has been really active on this issue and he was active in the Chamber last week during questions, so well done to him.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the news of an Australian company’s intention to potentially purchase Britishvolt, which I heard about today when talking to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), is truly good news. Does he agree that the Government must invest in British business, manufacturing and engineering? I see our highly skilled aerospace workers constantly fearful for their jobs and managers reluctant to expand. Further, will he join me in asking the Minister  for the Government to focus—they must focus—financial investment in our manufacturers throughout all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Ian Lavery: Yes, of course. I will come on to the nub of the questions the hon. Gentleman raises during my speech—I have only got through two paragraphs up till now.
The Britishvolt site has been kept alive for years. It is not just something somebody has come up with; it is to the credit of the former Labour-run council, which had the foresight to recognise the site’s advantages. It insisted on maintaining the site for industrial use to create thousands of potential jobs in the future, a prophecy that Britishvolt promised to make a reality. We should remember that projects on the scale Britishvolt was proposing do not just appear from thin air. They go through decades of decision making and planning. That was largely done by the Labour group on Wansbeck Council, which made the site so attractive to potential builders over decades.
Britishvolt arrived on the scene in late 2020 and was full of promise and potential. While many of the industry professionals I spoke to, along with others, expressed scepticism about its lack of experience and long-term plans, it continued to exceed expectations and gather support. I recall the chief executive ringing me up before Christmas that year, just out of the blue. He said, “I’m the chief executive of Britishvolt”—I had not heard of it—“and we are bringing 8,000 jobs to your constituency.” They were going to be well-paid, secure jobs—green industrial jobs. I promise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I could not believe it. It was like all my Christmases had come at once. Since then, I have been heavily involved, only to be devastated by the current position.
As I say, Britishvolt arrived on the scene in late 2020. It impressed people so much that it managed to secure a £100 million grant from the Government’s automotive transformation fund. To many, that seemed to legitimise the company. There were still many people—many, many people, in fact—who doubted it, but they were confounded by glowing reports from the then Business Secretary, the then Chancellor and the then Prime Minister.
At the time, the then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), announced:
“I’m delighted to confirm we have now provided Britishvolt with a final grant offer through the Automotive Transformation Fund. The Blyth gigafactory will turbocharge our plans to embed a globally competitive electric vehicle supply chain in the UK and it is fantastic to see how the project is progressing.
The vast site will ensure Britain can fully capture the benefits of the booming global electric vehicle market. The well-paid jobs and growth it will generate for the North East of England will be transformational and are exactly the reason we are investing to make the UK the best place in the world for automotive manufacturing.”
In an interview with national media when the grant had been confirmed, he also claimed:
“It is absolutely what levelling up is all about. In fact, I can’t think of a project that demonstrates levelling up better than this one.”
The then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), claimed:
“Britishvolt’s plan to build a new gigafactory in Northumberland is a strong testament to the skilled workers of the North East and the UK’s place at the helm of the global green industrial revolution.
Backed by government and private sector investment, this new battery factory will boost the production of electric vehicles in the UK, whilst levelling up opportunity and bringing thousands of new highly-skilled jobs to communities in our industrial heartlands.”
Last summer, before his departure from office, he gave me further guarantees in this House that support for Britishvolt was in the post and that the Government remained 100% behind the project.
The then Chancellor, who is now the Prime Minister, also took the opportunity to jump on the bandwagon, boasting:
“Once complete, this factory will produce enough batteries for over 300,000 electric vehicles each year…Our #PlanForJobs is working.”
So he claimed. At the time, everybody wanted a piece of Britishvolt, which was hailed as the poster boy of levelling up and as a tribute to the vision of life post Brexit held by this new-look Conservative party.
So where did it all go wrong? What actually happened? Why are we in this situation now? At what point did the Government go cold on Britishvolt, which was hailed only a year ago as the jewel in the crown of their levelling-up plans and vision for Britain? As ever, the Government will be keen to blame the cost of soaring energy bills and the knock-on effects of the illegal invasion of Ukraine, but that does not add up with the story across Europe. The website Sifted is tracking the development of 33 gigafactories across Europe, many of which are due to be up and running imminently. Germany has plans for 12 gigafactories, while the UK has plans for only three, one being the Cambois gigafactory we are discussing, which is now in great peril at best.
The underlying issue with Britishvolt is that as a start-up it had no capital to work with, and a range of issues meant it was not able to attract sufficient investment and meet the milestones that would have unlocked the Government funding that was promised—not a penny was ever received by the company, despite the benefits explained by the Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister and the former Business Secretary.

Sharon Hodgson: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend’s flow too much, as he is making some excellent points. On the number of gigafactories we need, he mentioned plans for three. I hope the one in his constituency will be saved, but it looks as though we may lose it. We actually need eight gigafactories if we are to meet the 2030 target for zero-emission vehicles. The last thing in the world we should be doing is not saving the plant in his constituency. The Minister shakes her head, but I do not know how we will ever reach that target if we do not save such plants.

Ian Lavery: I will come on to that point later in my speech, but my hon. Friend makes a very valid and strong point.
On the issue of competitive energy sources, the UK’s industrial energy pricing is far from competitive and drives investment away, while our green energy infrastructure is nowhere near able to guarantee a supply of energy via the national grid. In December 2022, the UK cost per  megawatt-hour was £580, while in Germany it was £225, in Italy £259, in France £238, and in Sweden £206. If we are ever going to reach our targets and support the automotive industry, that disparity must be addressed without any further delay.
That is just a drop in the ocean of the wider strategic issues that have been allowed to develop in the industry. We have hundreds of thousands of workers producing parts for vehicles that will not be required, with no clear plan on how those workers will transition and be reskilled in a rapidly changing industry. That is part of the wider issue of a chronic skills shortage that needs to be addressed by having the proper training available for our young people leaving schools and paying them a proper living wage to do well-paid skilled jobs. We are being rapidly overtaken by European competitors who have support from the European Commission and the member states themselves, and we are also being stymied by the strength of the US and, in particular, China, which has a near dominance in the supply of cells, cathodes and anodes, as well as the base materials for their manufacture.
CATL in Germany has received grant and loans from the state of €750 million, or 22.8% of the total build costs; Northvolt in Sweden has had €505 million, or 17.1%; and in North America General Motors has had $2.5 billion, or 36.2%, Stellantis has had $l billion, or 35.7%, Tesla has had $1.3 billion and Ford has had $884 million—the list is nearly endless. Compare that with Britishvolt, which was promised just £100 million by the Government, and guess what percentage that was of build costs—only 2.3%. That is absolutely disgraceful. Moreover, the £100 million was heavily caveated, to the point where the company never had a penny of Government support. How can this country—how can we, as a manufacturing nation—expect to be competitive while Governments across Europe and beyond are offering real incentives for the manufacture of batteries, far greater than those offered by our Government? We have to pull our socks up. We have to get on to the pitch. We have to start playing the game, for the sake of this nation.
In the autumn, when Britishvolt was facing financial difficulties, it asked for £30 million of the £100 million grant that had been agreed by the Government. The company asked for this to be released early because it had cashflow problems, arguing that the money would help keep it afloat and attract the private investment that it needed to reach the other milestones set by the Government. The Government have repeatedly made the point that they need to act responsibly with taxpayers’ money. I agree with that, and I am sure no one disagrees with it, but it seems to me that £30 million for a company that says the money will allow it to stay in business and create 8,000 jobs in a region that has been held back for so long, keeping it afloat, is a worthwhile investment. That £30 million is a mere drop in the ocean of the money lost so carelessly during the pandemic, which went into the coffers of those with close ties to senior members of the Government, but when it might be spent on benefiting held-back towns in the north-east, it is held under very tight wraps.
By this point, the Government’s attitude towards the company seems to have cooled considerably since the previous January, when they were singing its praises from every rooftop they could find. The pandemic and  the Russian invasion of Ukraine have been harsh reminders of the need for national self-reliance, particularly in key strategic industries. Simply assembling the batteries in the UK is not enough; as we enter a new phase of globalisation, we must take control of our own destiny—and of battery manufacturing—if we want our car industry to survive. We still do not have a single fully functioning gigafactory, although, as was mentioned earlier, predictions suggest that we will need anywhere between eight and 10 by 2040.
All this has real consequences at an individual human level. Towns and villages across south-east Northumberland and in the north-east as a whole, including my constituency, have been held back for decades. Once thriving industrial communities, they have had their economic and social fabric swept from under them with nothing to replace it. More than a decade of brutal austerity has hollowed out our public services and civic spaces and left us battling high levels of unemployment, low pay, poverty, crime, and addiction problems. The jobs that were promised to come with the gigafactory had the potential to be the first step in changing the fortunes of our region. The income from the new well-paid local jobs would have supported thousands of families across our communities, and might well have helped to kick-start a new era of manufacturing in industrial work that could have reignited the economy in the towns and villages close by.
There was a good deal of reluctant optimism about announcements of new developments in transport and infrastructure, alongside the announcements about the factory and the possibility of money from the Government’s new towns fund and levelling-up fund, but bit by bit, drip by drip, that has ebbed away. Only last week a bid from Ashington, in my constituency, for levelling-up money to transform the crumbling town centre was rejected, while Richmond, in the Prime Minister’s Yorkshire constituency, received a cosy £19 million. That is pretty offensive to people in held-back communities.
Bedlington in my constituency got about £8 million to build new cycling lanes, although the bid was somewhat ironically designed with getting workers to the new Britishvolt factory in mind. Although every penny given to Bedlington is welcome, many are already questioning whether new cycle lanes are all that levelling up will amount to, given how starved the town has been, like many in my constituency, of crucial infrastructure funding for so long. The levelling-up fund has proved itself to be time-consuming, expensive, divisive and unable to meet the needs of held-back towns in the north-east. The south-east has received nearly twice as much as the north-east from the fund, and none of this touches the sides of the cuts to local councils since 2010 and the introduction of austerity.
The best use of levelling-up money for south-east Northumberland would have been getting behind the Britishvolt gigafactory. The people of Northumberland and the north-east have, sadly, once again been let down by those working far away in the halls of Whitehall and Downing Street. Three Prime Ministers in a matter of weeks and a merry-go-round of Ministers in different positions, based on nothing but blind loyalty, rather than competence and know-how, has been a disaster for any plans the Government may have had to level up my constituency and the region. As usual, we are the ones dealing with the consequences of the internal political drama unfolding in the ranks of the Conservative party.
We need long-term thinking and a proper plan for our broader industrial sector, and we need to overcome the major obstacles our automotive industry is up against, if we are to truly level up, or gauge up, our communities in the north-east, not just a few packets of money—not just the crumbs off the table. It cannot just be that who is best at submitting a bid will get the money and other areas that are sadly lacking will again get left further and further behind—my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) talked about that.
This morning, the news broke in the press that Recharge Industries, an Australian-based company, had put in an offer to buy Britishvolt, which is very encouraging, as were other reports in the press this morning that 12 other companies have shown an interest. Let us hope that something can happen, because we cannot have another false dawn. We cannot have another Britishvolt, where we have a project of this magnitude, with the land, the planning and everything else in place, only for the Government to go cold and step back from assisting our regions.
A couple of issues are really interesting. The administrator, Ernst & Young, has a legal obligation to accept the highest offer. It has no legal obligation to accept what might be the best offer for the people in our communities or to say, “I will take that offer because it is going to create tens of thousands or hundreds of jobs.” It has an obligation to seek what is best for the current shareholders. We have to look at that and hope that the administrators bear in mind when making this ultimate decision that this is not only about the shareholders, many of whom will probably not live in our region, or even in this country, and are looking for as much money as possible—the people in our region count and they should not be forgotten. We have to put as much pressure as we can on the administrators.
I am going to ask the Minister a number of quick questions. We have to make sure that the Government step up to the plate on this. I have explained this and I will not repeat myself, but the Government were shouting about Britishvolt from the rooftops one minute and then they were refusing any finances to it the next moment—that is well documented. They said that one of the milestones was private investment, but the company thought that was wrong way around. Those private companies were willing to invest on the basis that the Government would support it morally and financially. If the company had UK Government support, that would hold sway. The British Government basically abdicated responsibility, and jumped off the ship like a rat. That caused investors to be extremely unhappy, and probably put them off in the short and the medium term.
We are where we are with Britishvolt at Cambois. Will the Minister commit to do whatever it takes to get behind whoever acquires the site to build a gigafactory, including offering a proper package of financial support, in line with what other states across Europe offer? I have explained the massive difference in support that European countries get from their Governments. Can the Minister outline the Government’s plans to ensure that the site in Cambois is developed as quickly as possible? There cannot be any more delays. We hope that the Government will get in intense discussions to support any successful bidder for the plant.
Would the Minister tell us why money was not forthcoming to Britishvolt when it requested the £30 million early, which it argues would have gone a long way to reach its milestones and to get the gigafactory developed? Can the Minister clarify what due diligence was done on the company when it decided to offer it a £100-million grant in the first place? Why did the Government eventually go cold on their support? Can the Minister clarify what the Government are doing to reach the target of building eight to 10 gigafactories by 2040? How do they plan to stay competitive with other companies across Europe and globally, given the strategic barriers that I have outlined?
I have spoken for quite some time, but the issue is critical for Members, individuals and families in south-east Northumberland and the wider afield constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), for Hemsworth and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). We feel left behind. We feel that the Government have not supported us, despite the initial euphoria that this was to be the best possible opportunity to transform our area. I say to the Minister that, seriously, we need to get on to that playing field. We need to support the automotive industry. That includes electrical vehicle battery plants. We are way behind if we are to have 80 by 2040. Let’s get cracking. Let’s get the site developed in Cambois. Let’s get the Government support to the preferred bidder and make sure that the bidder wants a gigafactory, not something much less, so we can transform the economy of our great region.

Nigel Evans: Mr Ian Levy has sought permission from the mover of the motion and from the Minister to make a short contribution, and I have been informed.

Ian Levy: I thank the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) for allowing me to speak briefly in his debate. I would like to make it clear that Britishvolt is in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but its regional office was in Blyth on the other side of the river, as is JDR Cables.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I accept that it was right for the Government to set milestones that had to be met in order to receive taxpayers’ money. It is regrettable that Britishvolt could not fulfil its business plan, which would have triggered a staged release of public funds, but giving a business £100 million of taxpayers’ money without conditions would have been completely indefensible, no matter how much we all want the plan to succeed. I want it to succeed, and the hon. Gentleman wants it to succeed, and I do hope that we can work together.
Since my election, I have been a big supporter of the project to build a gigafactory on the Blyth estuary, and despite the disappointing news about Britishvolt I will continue to champion this opportunity. I welcome statements from the Government in recent days that Ministers wish to ensure the best outcome for the site, and I will work closely with the local authority and potential investors to achieve this. Despite articles in the national press this week seeking to run down our area, people in Blyth and Blyth Valley are working hard and will make the most of the opportunities to work in skilled roles. The Blyth area is still a significant centre  for the renewables sector, with businesses based in Blyth, JDR Cables’ huge investment in the area next to the Britishvolt site and the excellent work that the offshore catapult is doing on the estuary to support the industry with cutting-edge research and development. The north-east really is at the cutting edge of investment and innovation and the site still offers a massive opportunity to the right developer, as the hon. Gentleman says. We need to work together to do this.
At the site of the old Blyth power station, there is excellent power connectivity with the ability to hook up to the interconnector. This would allow us to draw green renewable energy from Norway. On the estuary, we have the only deep water port in Northumberland. We have easy access to the A1 and the national road networks, as well as good rail connections. Most importantly, there is a strong and willing workforce, and the schools, colleges and skills providers are all raring to get people prepared for the 3,000 jobs on the shop floor that this project will bring, along with another 5,000 jobs in the supply chain. I will work with anyone—the Government, the council, the hon. Gentleman and anyone who believes in what Blyth and the area have to offer—to attract potential investors to the site and make sure that this project goes ahead.

Nusrat Ghani: Allow me to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) on securing today’s debate. I know that he has been very active in Parliament in raising the profile of this situation, and I could hear from the passion in his speech how concerned he is for the people in the region. I also welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) about working with us on this. I welcome this opportunity to address a number of the issues raised, and I hope we can agree that the site provides a perfect ecosystem for a factory to be viable. I will address that shortly.
Britishvolt entering administration is regrettable and my thoughts are first and foremost with the company’s employees and their families at this difficult time. The Government are completely committed to building a sustainable future for the automotive industry in the UK, and promoting our EV manufacturing capability is a central pillar of that mission. I will come on to that in a moment. We are determined to see British companies succeed in the EV industry, and as part of our efforts we offered significant support to Britishvolt through the automotive transformation fund, but the Government also have a fundamental responsibility to protect taxpayers’ money and we have to ensure that our investments are not put at risk. I am sure that the hon. Members’ constituents would feel even more let down if that were to happen. The funding for Britishvolt was therefore offered on the condition that key milestones were met. Those milestones were agreed after lots of conversations with officials in the Department and included private sector investment commitments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley perfectly put it, offering public money without conditions would have been indefensible. Unfortunately, the company was unable to meet these conditions and, as a result, no ATF funds were paid out.
The hon. Member for Wansbeck made an important point about due diligence. Full due diligence was completed before a final grant offer letter was awarded to Britishvolt. As a result of that work, the funding was designed so that agreed milestones had to be achieved for the company to draw down any funds but, obviously, those milestones were not achieved.
Throughout the process, we always remained hopeful that Britishvolt would find a suitable investor, and we are deeply disappointed that that has not been possible, but I will move on to what really matters. The hon. Gentleman spent quite a bit of time talking about his constituency and the region, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley said, is a fantastic place. I assure the hon. Gentleman that securing battery production in the UK is a Government priority. We understand it is the foundation of a successful EV industry, and we remain committed to seeing a gigafactory developed in Blyth. Cambois is widely regarded as one of the best locations in Europe for a gigafactory, as it is a huge site with power connection and planning permission. Of course, the proud manufacturing history of Blyth Valley means it is home to the highly skilled workers that a gigafactory would need to succeed. All the ingredients are there. I am therefore certain the site will continue to attract interest from developers with big ambitions, and I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Wansbeck and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley as any interest progresses.
We are doing all we can to ensure the best outcome for the site, and we will work closely with Northumberland County Council to achieve this. We are also working hard to support Britishvolt employees and their families. Employees will be able to access a broad range of support, including universal credit and the new jobseeker’s allowance scheme.
Finally, we will continue to work to unlock the region’s enormous potential. The new Northumberland railway line aims to improve journey times and reliability when it opens to passengers. A lot has been said about funding to the region, and we have provided more than £20 million from the towns fund and £11 million from the future high streets fund. The site is such a fantastic place because there is a lot going on, and there is a lot of support to help the community, arts and cinema, alongside the new Energy Central campus.
This builds on Blyth’s energy success story, as it draws on its maritime history to develop the offshore industries of the future—my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley beat me to it. Today, Blyth is home to the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult’s National Renewable Energy Centre, which provides open access and independent tests and research facilities to drive the development of transformative clean technologies. The clean energy industry will be a critical part of Britain’s green transition, but if we are to deliver a green transition that works for everyone, delivering growth and jobs for all in energy is only part of the picture.
The automotive industry is vital to the UK’s economy, and it is at the core of communities across the country. We must ensure it succeeds in the transition to net zero if we are to deliver not only on our climate goals but on our ambition to level up our country and advance its global standing. If we get it right, we can build an industry fit for the future that delivers security, prosperity and opportunity for places such as Blyth and Wansbeck  in the century to come. We will continue to champion the UK as the best place in the world to build automotives as we transition to electric vehicles.
The automotive transformation fund supports the development of an internationally competitive electric vehicle supply chain in the UK, and the Government continue to work through the ATF to unlock private investment for gigafactories, battery materials, supply chains, motors, power, electronics and fuel cell systems. We already work closely with the sector through the joint Government and industry-led Automotive Council to ensure that we can identify and seize the opportunities for growth and competitiveness as they arise.
We regularly meet the automotive companies, both new and of long standing, to discuss a range issues, including future investment. To ensure our automotive industry can thrive by leveraging investment, we are providing Government support for new plants and upgrades, as several Opposition Members mentioned. Companies continue to show confidence in the UK, announcing major investments across the country. [Interruption.] This is good news, guys. Since 2021, we have seen £1 billion from Nissan and Envision to create an EV manufacturing hub in Sunderland, a world-class eco system that will drive growth at every stage of the EV supply chain, from batteries to the finished product. We have also seen £100 million from Stellantis to support electric vehicle production at its site in Ellesmere Port, and Ford commit additional funding to Halewood for its first EV component site in Europe, bringing its total investment to £380 million. These investments show that we have a track record of success, which is why this site with the right firm can be just as successful.
I am proud that we are not just sticking to the tried and tested. If we want to continue to succeed, we have to dare to do things differently. That is why it is so important that the UK is also a world leader in automotive research and development. Through the Advanced Propulsion Centre, Government and industry have committed more than £1.2 billion to accelerate the development and commercialisation of strategically  important emerging vehicle technologies to strengthen the UK’s competitive edge in an increasingly competitive world. That is a long-term strategy. The APC estimates that projects we have supported will help to create and safeguard more than 50,000 jobs, saving over 312 million tonnes of CO2, which is the equivalent of removing the lifetime emissions of more than 12.6 million cars.
What is incredibly exciting is that we are also supporting the Faraday Battery Challenge with an overall budget of £544 million for work to establish the UK as a battery science superpower, so, as I said earlier, all the right ingredients are here. We are investing nearly £80 million through Innovate UK in driving the electric revolution, a programme to accelerate the capability and growth of the electric supply chain for power, electronics, machines and drives in the UK.
Industry recognises the depth and breadth of our innovation economy, which puts eco right at the cutting edge of automotive manufacturing. Just last week, Williams announced that it would be opening a new plant for manufacturing advanced batteries for HGVs in Kidlington. That is exactly the sort of investment that we want to see come to all regions of the UK to build on more than a century of vehicle manufacturing to deliver sustainable growth and jobs for decades to come.
We have the infrastructure and the talent. Together, we can and we will create a globally competitive electric vehicle supply chain in the UK, boosting homegrown EV battery production and levelling up across the country as we accelerate towards a greener future that works for everyone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley said towards the end of his speech, this is a fantastic site. All the ingredients are in play. I cannot comment on speculation in the press, but I can confirm that we will of course take any credible options very seriously. We are very committed to the site and I can assure the hon. Member for Wansbeck that this Government are determined to make that site work for Blyth and for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Environmental Protection

That the draft Environmental Targets (Biodiversity) (England) Regulations 2022, which, were laid before this House on 19 December 2022, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 166.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Environmental Protection

That the draft Environmental Targets (Woodland and Trees Outside Woodland) (England) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 20 December 2022, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 166.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Agriculture

That the draft Environmental Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 19 December 2022, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 170.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Environmental Protection

That the draft Environmental Targets (Fine Particulate Matter) (England) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 19 December 2022, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 170.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Environmental Protection

That the draft Environmental Targets (Residual Waste) (England) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 19 December 2022, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 170.
Question accordingly agreed to.